CSR-The Shape of A History

Corporate Social
Responsibility
Th e s h a p e o f a h i s t o r y, 1 9 4 5 - 2 0 0 4
H i s t o r y o f C o r p o r at e R e s p o n s i b i l i t y P r o j e c t
Preliminary project planing paper 2005
Working Paper No. 1
CONTENTS
1 | Preface and Acknowledgements
2 | Executive Summary
4 | Introduction
5 | I. Total Economic Impact
6 | II. The Changing Environment of Business
9 | III. Evolving Concepts and Definitions of CSR
16 | IV. Putting Ideas into Action Studies of Business Practices
Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, National Child Labor
Committee Collection, [reproduction number, e.g., LC-USZ62-108765]
19 | V. Current (and Recurrent) Debates and Developments

21 | VI. Bibliography and Resources Database
31 | VII. Creating a CSR Timeline
Appendices
23 | Appendix A. Definitions of CSR
27 | Appendix B. CSR Topic List
28 | Appendix C. Preliminary Bibliography
39 | Appendix D. Partial Listing of Organizations and Centers
43 | Appendix E. Supplementary Timeline Materials
49 | About the Center for Ethical Business Cultures
The Influence of Shareholders on

Corporate Social Responsibility
Copyright 2010 by the Center

for Ethical Business Cultures
Preface and Acknowledgements
his planning study for a possible history of corporate social responsibility was conducted in the summer and fall of 2004 by the Center for Ethical Business Cultures (CEBC). Kenneth Goodpaster,
Ph.D., who holds the Koch Endowed Chair in Business Ethics at the University of St. Thomas, played a
lead role in framing and guiding the inquiry. Key CEBC staff were David Rodbourne, vice president of
CEBC, and Barbra Hernke, research assistant. Linnea Betzler provided additional research assistance.
The project was undertaken thanks to the generous support of Harry Halloran, Chairman and CEO of
American Refining Group Inc. (ARG). Mr. Halloran is a member of the Global Governing Board of the
Caux Round Table (CRT) and has funded development of the Self Assessment and Improvement Process
(SAIP) based on the CRT Principles for Business. He leads the SAIPs U.S. Working Group, which has met
regularly at the University of St. Thomas.
This Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) History project began with the following objectives:
>
>
>
>
Conduct a literature search to identify studies potentially relevant to the history of corporate
social responsibility.
In particular, determine whether a history of CSR already exists covering the period from 1945
to the present.
Identify potential resources, in three categories, that would be essential in developing a substantive history of CSR project:
Scholars and writers to conduct research and write the history,
Peer reviewers to ensure the work is unbiased and rigorous, and
Centers of excellence and knowledge that could provide expertise and critical information.
Identify some of the key markers or milestones related to the implementation of CSR by business. These might include innovative practices, scandals, legislation, institutional development,
and changes in the context within which business operates.
Our goal was not to write the history but to sketch what elements might be included if it is written and to
identify at least some of the expertise that might contribute to such an undertaking.
The project team expresses its special thanks and appreciation to T. Dean Maines for his advice on content and to Robert C. Shoemake and Douglas J. Jondle, Ph.D., for their assistance in editing and in the
design of this report. We want also to acknowledge the support of the University of St. Thomas library staff.
The views expressed in this CEBC History of Corporate

Responsibility working paper are those of the author(s).
1 |
The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility
Executive Summary
he charge for this paper was to sketch the elements that could be explored in writing a history
of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to identify some of the intellectual and bibliographic
resources potentially available. In that sense, it is a planning study. The time period selected begins in
1945 and ends with 2004. We recognize, however, that the roots of CSR begin much earlier.
The project team at the Center for Ethical Business Cultures (CEBC) undertook a preliminary literature search and concluded that no comprehensive history of CSR exists for this period. In sketching
a potential approach to the subject, the team discusses five broad categories or lenses that would
cast light on the subject. They are: the core economic impact of business on society, the changing
context economic, political and social within which business operates, the evolution of the definition of CSR, attention to business practices that have been implemented, and the issues related to
CSR that are currently under debate.
Focusing on the core economic contribution of business to society draws attention to its role
in meeting basic human needs, increasing standards of living, creating wealth, and, as many
argue, providing the fundamental platform for political freedom.
Focusing on the changing environment or context for business illuminates the forces that influence business conduct and how business has developed its approach to CSR. Globalization,
development of standards, public opinion, emergence of social investing, governmental regulation, and the role of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are relevant.
Definitions of CSR have emerged both from practitioners in business and from scholars, often
independently. Attention to this lens helps to clarify and test theoretical frameworks for evaluating business practice.
Particularly important for a history is examination of actual business practice and how it has
evolved across the 60-year period in question. This examination can be undertaken in a variety
of ways: studying the history of a single company or case, understanding how the CSR profession has developed and in turn influenced business decisions, observing the work of industry
associations, analysis of surveys of business, and case studies of how business has responded
to particular issues. It will be important to explore the differences between large, sometimes
transnational, corporations and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Finally, the last 10-15 years offer numerous examples of issues illustrating fundamental conflicts between business and its critics and examples of business struggling to deal with new
institutional relationships and global social, environmental, economic and political challenges.
2 |
To lay a foundation for future discussion and for beginning a history of CSR, the paper offers a preliminary and admittedly incomplete bibliography based on our literature search. Clearly with a
history as the goal, far more work will be required to identify original source material from business,
business leaders, and reports that may not be published.
The paper suggests that it may be useful to develop a graphical timeline from 1945 to 2004 representing key developments or milestones perhaps several timelines, each keyed to particular dimensions
of CSR. A rough model is offered.
Finally, the paper identifies a number of scholars, business and academic centers, and NGOs that
could be approached to explore their interest in the project and whether they have information or
resources to bring to the table.
We approached this task with trepidation, recognizing the sheer volume of material, the number
organizations working in the field, and the quality of analysis and thinking evident among scholars,
practitioners and NGOs. Our appreciation for the scope of the project only grew as we proceeded.
It is our hope that this paper will serve as a point of departure for discussion and as a launching pad
for a more intensive effort to write a thorough and insightful history of corporate social responsibility. For this reason, we have developed an expandable database as a repository for the literature
search, the list of scholars, the list of centers, and the list of events or milestones that might be developed into a CSR timeline(s).
3 |

The shape of a history, 1945-2004
Introduction
lthough the time period adopted for this study runs from 1945 to the present,
almost 60 years, it is absolutely clear from even a cursory reading of Morrell
Healds book, The Social Responsibilities of Business (1900-1960) that the idea and
practice of corporate social responsibility (CSR) was alive and growing decades
earlier. Business giving and business involvement in community issues was familiar turf to many leading companies in the first half of the 20th century. Its roots
reach back at least into the 19th century, and far earlier if one recognizes that the
earliest corporations were chartered with public goals and public interest objectives as well as private economic objectives in mind.
The future inquiry anticipated here, therefore, might be more appropriately
titled the recent history of corporate social responsibility. This point is underscored by the sheer volume of material related to different aspects of CSR that
has emerged (and may be web accessible) over the past 15 years.
Writing a substantive history of CSR since 1945 will require attention to broad
social, political and economic changes along multiple dimensions. It is not simply a story of corporate actions. The discussion below is intended to sketch the
investigations that might be conducted in at least five broad categories to tell the
full story. Each category offers us a different lens or perspective on the story:
The fundamental, core economic and social impact of business on society;
The changing social, political and economic environment or context
within which business operates;
The evolution of concepts and definitions of CSR;
The developments in business CSR management strategies and practices;
The nature of CSR issues currently under debate.
In addition, the working paper includes:
Results of a literature search on CSR as well as a tentative list of scholars,
practitioners and centers related to the field.
A selective timeline offered as an example of a device that may be useful
in charting developments.
4 |
Total Economic Impact
he first lens, and in many respects the most important, focuses our attention on the core
economic contribution of business to society. Indeed there are important reasons why consideration of the total economic impact of business should come first. Beginning with Adam
Smith, many thoughtful business practitioners and theoreticians have stressed the productive
and beneficial power of appropriately regulated free enterprise. Even scholars who have studied
corporate social responsibility have acknowledged the centrality of this core economic function,
although many define CSR as going beyond economic functions and legal requirements.
Taking the point a step further, economist Milton Friedman and others argue that this free
enterprise system provides not only economic benefit but the foundation of political freedom.
As will be noted later, many identify the economic contribution of business as the first and most
fundamental of the corporate social responsibilities of business.
The economic function and contribution of business is foremost in the minds of business leaders whether their definition of the purpose of business is broader (serving society) or narrower
(products that meet customer needs). For example, David Koch, chairman emeritus of Graco Inc.,
speaks often of the many ways that business benefits society. He and other business leaders in
Minnesota and elsewhere argue that business exists to serve society, that profit is simply a
useful indicator. In his own words:
I talk often with MBA students, and I always ask them if they know the
purpose of business. I tell them that the purpose of business is to serve people
citizens, folks, all of us. Our countrys founders knew they needed jobs,
products, food, clothing and services, and they decided to create a system in
which people could take risks, invest their money and compete to meet those
needs. The founders did not decide to make a few people wealthy. Their vision
was a system that would serve all of the people not just shareholders, not
just management. They knew that government needed tax revenues and that
corporations and individuals would need to succeed in order to pay those
taxes. The historical record shows that this business system has been the most
productive in the world, produced the highest standard of living.
To illustrate his point, Koch laid out the
contribution of Graco in the year 2003.
(See illustration on right.)
This exercise could be repeated for
every company large or small. Multiplied across the country, indeed across
the globe, the production of goods and
services by business enterprises, large
and small, makes up the lions share of
the gross domestic product and provides
the foundation for public services based
on tax revenues.
5 |
In important ways, this illustration from Graco captures only part of the companys impact and by
extension only a portion of the impact of business in society. Behind sales to customers numbers are
products or services that are useful to those customers and R&D innovations that make those products and services even more useful. Payroll and benefit numbers represent earnings to support families,
training to enhance skills, opportunities for career development, and in some cases health care and
retirement assistance. Shareholder returns are recycled back into the economy through spending, reinvestment, charitable gifts and taxes. Taxes contribute to a wide spectrum of public services, education,
and development.
The core point is that the free enterprise business system brings remarkable creativity, innovation,
opportunity and production to society resulting in an unparalleled standard of living. It demands increasingly efficient use of scarce resources. Frequently, the sheer scope and variety of ways the business system
serves and benefits society is taken for granted, if it is not altogether unrecognized.
Much of the CSR debate, however, has been about how these total economic and societal benefits
are achieved, whether they are fairly distributed or accessible, whether there is a reasonable balance
between and among stakeholders, what negative side effects (externalities) occur along the way and
whether or how those are managed, how decisions are made and who has a voice in those decisions, what
is the appropriate relationship between the public and private sectors, and how companies are governed
and held accountable. These are extremely important concerns, but this first lens reminds us to examine
the total economic and social impact and not lose sight of its importance.
II. The Changing Environment of Business

The second lens providing insight into the history of CSR highlights fundamental and far-reaching
changes in the environment or context within which business leaders operate.
The 60-year period from 1945 to 2004 has seen profound changes in global political and economic
arrangements. A world in which communism was arrayed against an alliance of capitalism and various socialistic governments in Western Europe has now been transformed into a world in which the
principal tensions in political economy are between American-style global capitalism and more socially
self-protective economies in the European Union, Latin America, and Asia.
The rise of the European Union in particular has influenced expectations (and behavior) in the realm
of corporate responsibility or corporate social responsibility. The fall of the Berlin Wall led the Western
alliance to a new appreciation of internal differences that had been suppressed in a culture preoccupied
with the Soviet threat.
One internal difference between America and Europe has to do with social attitudes toward private vs. public institutions. At the risk of some exaggeration, Europeans are instinctively more trusting
toward government and distrustful toward corporations. Americans, on the other hand, seem to trust
corporations more than they trust government institutions. These social attitudes have given rise to
contrasting approaches to government regulation of the private sector. Employment protection against
layoffs and privacy protection surrounding personal information are just two areas in which European
attitudes seem to favor stronger public sector interventions than we find in the U.S.
There are also signs that Japanese corporations, in the wake of serious economic problems during the
last 15 years, are emulating Europe, rallying to the CSR banner in an effort to re-establish stakeholder
confidence (customers, employees, suppliers, government, etc.).
All this being said, U.S. publicly-traded companies, during the sixty years covered by the envisioned
study, have displayed, in many ways and along a number of developmental axes, a steady shift from
exclusive preoccupation with shareholders to a broader allegiance to stakeholders generally. This shift is
apparent as much in the legal arena as in relation to ethical expectations.
6 |
Against this backdrop, debate continues sometimes rages - about the role of capitalism in addressing global poverty and the challenges facing less developed countries, reflecting the tensions and differing perspectives between the developed North and the developing South.
Implications for research:
From our preliminary examination of the literature and developments in the field, it is clear that any
History of Corporate Social Responsibility must delineate the economic, social and political changes
that have influenced how businesses understand and approach CSR. While the changing context has
been a continuous theme through the 60-year period, this preliminary investigation found some evidence that many of the developments most relevant to CSR have occurred or at the least accelerated
dramatically in the past fifteen years, roughly since 1990. Further, much of the most recent story is
increasingly international in scope charting the activity of transnational corporations, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs), national governments, and international
bodies ranging from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to the
World Bank to the World Trade Organizaton (WTO) to the United Nations (among many others).
At the turn of the millennium, the CSR story has become a complex web of relationships stretching
across the globe and including the developing South as well as more traditional parties to the debate in
the economically developed North.
>> Globalization
Globalization of the economy and even the operations of smaller companies is a fundamental factor. Operating globally confronts companies with a wide range of new issues (cultural
and regulatory differences, labor and child labor standards, bribery and corruption, health crises,
human rights, deforestation, etc.).
>> Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)
The explosive development of civil society organizations (CSOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) which often challenge corporate behavior has compelled companies to respond.
NGOs at the center of this grassroots CSR movement are extremely heterogeneous in terms
of goals ranging from outright attacks on the fundamental power of corporations to efforts
to enhance beneficial and reduce detrimental impacts, and equally heterogeneous in terms of
strategies deployed ranging from confrontation to engagement, from stand alone operations to
highly sophisticated coalitions among NGOs.
>> Government-related Initiatives
Political pressure has prompted initiatives in governmental and intergovernmental organizations. Proposals have arisen within the United Nations, the International Labor Organization
(ILO), the OECD, the governments of the United Kingdom, France, and the European Union
to name only a few. Even though it has resisted linking economic and social concerns, the
WTO has also been a focal point for debate about the scope of business responsibilities since
the WTO sets the rules for the global trade. The range of issues is equally diverse environment,
labor rights, human rights, trade, corruption, corporate governance, health, transparency and disclosure, etc. And increasingly, governments of developing nations are weighing in, sometimes in
opposition to CSR initiatives. Companies have responded sometimes defensively and sometimes
with efforts to demonstrate that voluntary approaches will achieve better results.
7 |
>> Public Opinion

Although often imperfectly expressed through opinion polls, societal values today, more so than
60 years ago, appear to emphasize the responsibility of companies to improve society and to
improve the environment. Shifts in public values and opinion can be related to the growth of
NGOs, changing informal standards as well as legal prescriptions for business conduct, emergence of cause-related marketing, and linkage between a companys reputation and its giving and
community involvement. However, it must be acknowledged that what people say when polled
and what they do as customers at the point of sale may diverge. (For example, they may state that
they prefer responsible products but buy solely on price). Nonetheless, many companies factor
public expectations about CSR into a wide range of business practices. MORI (Market Opinion
Research International the largest market research company in Great Britian), Gallup, Harris
and other polling organizations can provide data on the publics changing values and expectations.
> Examples: A MORI poll series on public opinion between 1998 and 2002, found that
the proportion of consumers who believe that in buying a product or service it is very
important that the company show a high degree of social responsibility rose from 28% to
44%. Various studies have been conducted to capture suppliers, executives, and consumer
opinions (BSR 2001; Holmes, 1976; Lea 2002).
>> Socially Responsible Investment (SRI)
Socially responsible investment grew out of grassroots efforts to restrict investment in South
Africa as a means of opposing apartheid. Other issues capturing the attention of ethical investors have been: environment, military armaments, alcohol, tobacco and community or economic
development among others. SRI investors and analysts have increasingly pressured companies
to disclose social, environmental and ethical risks that may impact business and to report regularly on social and environmental as well as financial results the triple bottom line. This pressure has led to efforts to develop common reporting and measurement frameworks. It has also
raised questions about what is and is not material (materiality is the question of when an event
or measurement becomes a significant factor in a companys financial statement).
>> Codes and Standards
While some codes and standards have emerged from business leaders themselves (e.g., the Caux
Round Table Principles for Business), many codes are products of consumer and NGO advocacy
and public dissatisfaction with corporate conduct. In some instances, companies have become
partners in multi-sector initiatives to develop standards. Some are grounded in governmental
conventions such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights or the several ILO conventions on
labor. Currently under consideration at the UN is the Draft Norms on the Responsibilities of
Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights.
> Examples: Standards advanced by NGOs, religious groups, business, and others (some
with government involvement) include: The Sullivan Principles, the CERES Principles,
the Bellagio Principles Toward Sustainable Development, the Minnesota Principles,
Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, the White House Apparel Industry
Code of Conduct, and the UN Global Compact to note only a few.
> To view a brief list of over 20 codes and for access to these codes see
http://www.goodmoney.com/directry_codes.htm
> For a far more extensive list of codes and performance guidelines from a wide range of
sources, particularly related to human rights, see
http://www.business-humanrights.org/Categories/Principles
8 |
III. Evolving Concepts and Definitions of CSR
third lens through which we can view the history CSR highlights the ways in which business leaders and scholars have struggled to define and conceptualize CSR.
As America and Europe emerged from World War II and confronted the emerging Cold War tensions, thinking about business and the future course of the economic system in the West intensified.
The preliminary research for the envisioned project revealed a range of opinion and ongoing efforts
to articulate business responsibilities, to provide a philosophical foundation for those responsibilities,
and to develop effective ways of responding to or implementing those responsibilities. A few selected
examples of this evolution are offered below:
Dempsey and David:
Although the term corporate social responsibility was not used, Bernard Dempsey, in his 1949 Harvard
Business Review (HBR) article The Roots of Business Responsibility, laid out a rationale for responsible business practice. Dempsey provided a philosophical foundation for arguments in an HBR article
two months prior by Donald K. David, Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, titled Business Responsibilities in an Uncertain World. David called upon business leaders
to become engaged in public affairs beyond the immediate economic functions of business which they
regarded as its fundamental contribution to society. Dempsey provided philosophical foundations arguing the responsibilities of businessmen [apparently no businesswomen were contemplated] arose from
four concepts of justice: exchange justice the trust underlying exchanges in the market; distributive
justice the just relation between the government and individuals; general justice acceptance of legal
frameworks but beyond this to acceptance of ethical obligations; and especially social or contributive justice the obligation to contribute to the well-being and progress of individuals and society.
Dempsey and David asserted two reasons why businessmen must respond to the obligations of contributive justice. (1) They essentially argued that no man, and no business, is an island. All are in need of
a community, a well functioning community, in order to operate and thrive. (2) They argued that business controls substantial resources and has great capacity to contribute to the progress of society and the
well-being of individuals within society. This echoes other arguments that business power brings with it
business responsibility.
David noted a priority in business obligations: first to make the business effective, second to make
the business organization itself a good and just society (a healthy organization if you will), and third to
operate in ways that respect and contribute to external communities and organizations in other words
to be constructive. Included in their concept was a responsibility to ensure that competition was fair,
that the economic framework was functioning with an eye toward justice, and that broader communities
were healthy.
Dempsey added that contributive justice is the first principle of economic organization; it imposes
a positive obligation upon every economic agent not only to contribute positively to every community
of which he is a member but to contribute positively to the formation of necessary communities which
do not exist.
Both Dempsey and David argued that the broad spectrum of business leaders, regardless of how they
might articulate it, believed in a fundamental obligation to create a just society beyond the immediate
boundaries of the business and within which business could operate effectively. They built on a rich dialogue that preceded their writing by many years, and they foreshadowed future debates about business
responsibility.
9 |
Morrell Heald:
Morrell Heald wrote the only comprehensive history on this topic The Social Responsibilities of
Business: Company and Community 1900 - 1960 (published in 1970). Heald focused not on the
theory of social responsibility but on how businessmen themselves have defined and experienced it. In
particular, he looked to their policies and practices to tell the story.
Heald notes that the trusteeship concept of business leadership and responsibility was enunciated
nearly a quarter century before World War II. Indeed, Andrew Carnegie offered an even earlier statement of the trustee or stewardship concept in June 1889 in his North American Review article titled
Wealth. In 1906, Yale president Arthur Hadley advised business leaders to remember that they are
also trustees of the public interest and to align their sense of ethics and obligation accordingly. In the
1920s, the trusteeship concept emerged boldly in the words and practices of Owen D. Young, chairman,
and Gerard Swope, president of the General Electric Company. In their eyes, shareholders were only
one constituency to whom business leaders were responsible, and as Young put it in 1926, the public and
employees ranked ahead of shareholders. Young and Swope envisioned and sought to build partnerships
and cooperation between business, labor, government and community not open hostilities.
Well before World War II, the practices of giving (philanthropy) and of community involvement were
well established in community chest drives of the 1920s and in dealing with labor and community issues
associated with neighboring plants and in company towns although certainly not embraced by all
business leaders. As the 1950s unfolded Heald describes business leaders moving beyond philanthropy
to substantive cooperation and outright leadership on a range of community initiatives. He developed
extensive profiles of business initiatives with higher education, working to become a good neighbor, and
business support for the arts.
Archie Carroll:
Archie B. Carroll has provided the most comprehensive overview of the evolving definition of corporate social responsibility in the post World War II period. Carroll examines and compares all of the
main contributions from scholars from 1950 through the mid-1990s including: Howard Bowen, Keith
Davis, Clarence Walton, William Frederick, the Committee for Economic Development, Prakash Sethi,
Donna Wood, and many others.
Carroll credits Howard R. Bowen, 1953 author of the book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, as the Father of corporate Social Responsibility because his book dealt directly with the concept of
social responsibility. Bowen asserted that social responsibility refers to the obligations of businessmen
to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in
terms of the objectives and values of our society.
The past sixty years have been notable for the increasing attention given to the concept, for its continuing evolution, and for the lack of consensus on what it means and even whether it is legitimate.
At one extreme, Carroll notes Milton Friedmans often cited 1970 New York Times Magazine article
arguing that CSR, as a matter of principle, is fundamentally subversive of the true responsibilities of
business which are enhancing profitability and shareholder value. This point of view arises from the
economic theory, articulated first by Adam Smith, that a free market and pursuit of self-interest (later
shareholder value) will result in the greatest benefit for society overall.
Other scholars have debated whether basic economic and legal obligations fall within the concept of
CSR or whether the domain for CSR is over and beyond economic and legal obligations. In effect,
what is the scope and boundary of such responsibility? Still others bring differing views about what
issues merit the attention of business.
10 |
Carroll noted that business leaders themselves, under the auspices of the Committee for Economic
Development (CED) in 1971, articulated a definition, perhaps emerging in part from the political,
social and urban turmoil of the late 1960s. Essentially business functions by public consent and its
basic purpose is to serve constructively the needs of society to the satisfaction of society. The CED
report speaks to three overlapping levels of responsibility ranging from core economic functions to
anticipating emerging non-economic issues. [See Figure 1 on page 12.]
Carrolls own definition of CSR embraced a full range of responsibilities: economic, legal, ethical and
discretionary. Note that in Carrolls framework economic functions are at the heart of the corporate
social responsibilities of business. He later changed discretionary to philanthropic, but in either case
discretionary or philanthropic these responsibilities were seen as voluntary. Carroll did not see these
responsibility categories as mutually exclusive but rather as something of a continuum, often pursued
simultaneously. [See Figure 2 on page 12.]
In his overview of the evolution of the CSR concept, Carroll noted increasing attention among scholars and among business practitioners to how the business responds to or acts on these responsibilities.
It is one thing to talk about responsibility; it is another to talk about what to do and how to do it. The
terms of preference for this framework became corporate social responsiveness or corporate social performance (CSP), what Carroll called the action phase of management responding in the social sphere.
Social auditing and social issues management (SIM) are other concepts that developed in the 1970s
and 1980s. The 1980s saw efforts to connect corporate social responsibility (as principles), corporate
social responsiveness (as processes), and social issues management (as policies) or to link responsibility,
responsiveness and business ethics.
Stakeholder theory was formalized as a corporate decision-making framework through the work of
R. Edward Freeman in the 1980s. During the same period the concept of corporate conscience was
developed by Kenneth E. Goodpaster at the Harvard Business School.
William Frederick:
In the midst of these developments, William Frederick, writing in 1986, challenged CSR scholars for
failing to dig deeply into the underlying value conflicts between business and changing societal expectations. Frederick described two waves. One he called CSR1 and noted its focus on responsibility. The
second he called CSR2 and noted its focus on responsiveness (or how a business could respond to and
manage issues with all the tools and strategies that might entail). Neither was sufficient for Frederick.
He urged business leaders and CSR scholars to look deeper and deal with normative foundations and
conflicts. He was a strong proponent of connecting the field of business ethics with CSR. Anchoring
consideration of CSR in the moral foundations of business ethics led to a third approach or CSR3 what
he called corporate social rectitude.
Indeed, Business ethics grew substantially as a field from the 1980s through the 1990s.
In the 1990s the term corporate citizenship gained currency although the idea of the corporation
as a good citizen reaches back many decades. Most recently, corporate accountability has gained some
visibility as think tanks, NGOs and companies have focused on what processes are needed to assure
companies are accountable to stakeholders.
11 |
Summary
While scholars from the 1970s into the 1990s wrestled with CSR concepts and developed stakeholder
theory, numerous business leaders had independently articulated similar views on the purpose of business.
As noted earlier, there are many examples of 20th century business leaders who shaped their companies
business practices accordingly. A noteworthy example is J. Irwin Miller, Chairman and CEO of Cummins Engine Company, who laid out a comprehensive view of CSR in a 1975 interview in Organizational
Dynamics. Although the interview was conducted in 1975, he began putting his philosophy of business
into practice in the 1930s. [See Appendix A for a detailed quote from Miller.] The Dayton Family, founders
in 1906 and leaders well into the 1990s of the company that today is the Target Corporation, provides
another exemplar of a business philosophy intimately connecting business success with service to society.
Throughout this period scholars attempted to define, redefine, and clarify the concept of corporate
social responsibility that they saw being assumed by, imposed upon, and played out by business. In addition, scholars sought to connect and integrate disparate principles and activities into a more comprehensive conceptual model.
[See Appendix A for a more extensive list specific definitions of CSR advanced at various times over the
1945-2004 period.]
Figure 1. CED Model for Corporate Responsibility1

Efficient execution of economic functions.
Exercise economic functions with sensitivity

to changing social values and priorities.
Emerging and still amorphous responsibilities

business should assume in order to become more
involved in improving the social environment.
Figure 2. Archie Carroll Model of

Discretionary Responsibilities2
Ethical Responsibilities
Legal Responsibilities
Economic Responsibilities
12 |
IV. Putting Ideas into Action Studies of Business Practices
he fourth lens for examining CSR highlights business behavior and conduct. What is it that business was actually doing during this period? What strategies and processes were developed and
implemented by business? How did business translate broad concepts and commitments into action?
The complexity and continuing evolution of CSR makes it difficult and limiting to tell the story from
any one point of view. At least six different but complementary approaches to telling the corporate side
of the story may be essential:
1. The history of a single company, perhaps one regarded as a leader in the field.
> Potential Mainstream Candidates: Cummins Engine (mentioned above),Johnson & Johnson,
Cadbury Schweppes (both for its English and German predecessors), Target, Unilever (originally Lever Brothers), Merck, Pilkingtons, etc.
> CSR-driven Companies: Within the approach of learning from the history of a single company
are companies whose mission and strategy are fundamentally shaped by CSR commitments.
These fall into the category that Deborah Doane from New Economics Foundation calls ethical
minnows, companies formed around a core CSR or sustainability vision.
- Examples include: The Body Shop, Ecover, Caf Direct, perhaps Ben & Jerrys prior to
the takeover by Unilever, Day Chocolate Company, Toms of Maine, etc. While innovative, these companies sometimes operate at the fringes of the market and are not representative of the broader business community.
2. Understanding how specific leaders or CSR professionals have evolved in their thinking and role; in
other words who are the people who have been influential with respect to CSR within companies or civil
society (opinion leaders).
> Morrell Healds book, cited above, captures examples from the 1950s. The Center for Ethical
Business Cultures book, Culture of Corporate Citizenship: Minnesotas Business Legacy for the Global
Future, characterizes the role and vision of business leaders from several companies in Minnesota.
> Executives that have spoken on the topic of corporate responsibility appear to share a similar
message about CSR it makes good business sense. The speeches may have been in the aftermath of a difficult business decision or in response to public or media outcries. (Burke, 1983;
Dayton, 1979; and Butler, 1997). It is likely that a search for speeches and articles written by
or about selected leaders will be essential. The extensive work of J. Irwin Miller, former chairman and CEO of Cummins Engine, would be a valuable resource. Other leaders who might be
examined include: the Dayton Family (founders of Target), David Packard of Hewlett Packard,
James Burke of Johnson & Johnson, Elmer Anderson of HB Fuller, Robert Greenleaf who
championed the concept of servant leadership, Max de Pree of Herman Miller, William George
of Medtronic, and David Koch of Graco. Certainly there are many more candidates, and the
question will be which best helps clarify the development of CSR in the business community.
> One initiative, illustrating the vision of business leaders, is the founding of the Keystone Program
in Minnesota that celebrates corporate giving at the 5% and 2% pre-tax levels. A speech by
Carlson Companies Chairman and CEO Marilyn Carlson Nelson on the origins and thinking
behind the Keystone Program in Minnesota is useful. [Supplementing this leadership perspective,
the bibliography also notes a brief history of the Keystone Program that is available from the library of
the Minnesota Council on Foundations.]
13 |
> The story of The Body Shop is chronicled in a wide range of publications as well as in speeches
and articles by Anita Roddick, the founder of The Body Shop including the book, Business as
Usual: The Triumph of Anita Roddick.
3. The work of business associations provides another broad point of view. These come in a variety of forms:
> CSR-focused business associations include Business in the Community (BITC) in the U.K.,
Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) in the U.S., and Forum Empresa (Empresa Privada y
Responsabilidad Social en las Americas ) based in Santiago, Chile but covering the Americas are
three examples of organizations formed to promote and support CSR in companies.
> Some major business associations have conducted periodic research or conferences related to
CSR. The Conference Board has conducted regular surveys of business giving and held numerous conferences on corporate citizenship. The Institute of Directors in London has surveyed
its members, all corporate directors, on the importance and role of CSR in business. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce has developed CSR initiatives and also lobbied the U.S. government on
CSR-related issues. These are only a few examples.
4. Field surveys of the business community (generally or within a specific industry) provide another
point of view (although such surveys may touch only on limited components of CSR). Most of these
surveys have illuminated the practices of large companies, not the broad base of small and medium-sized
firms. Identifying survey results that provide a statistically valid picture of practices across the entire
spectrum of businesses would be useful though they appear to be extremely rare.
> Examples: BITC and MORI surveys in the UK. Conference Board surveys of business philanthropy. An Ashridge Centre for Business and Society in 2000 survey of 500 companies found
36% had dropped an investment project due to human rights issues. The Connecticut Council
for Philanthropy surveyed the states Top 200 firms on giving practices in 2001. The Entrepreneurs in Philanthropy Coalition conducted in-depth interviews with 49 entrepreneurs / business leaders in 1999 to assess their attitudes toward philanthropy. Kirk Hanson at the Markulla
Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University has conducted several studies of community
involvement and volunteerism among companies in the Silicon Valley in the mid-to-late 1990s.
5. Case studies of how companies have reacted to specific issues to explore the interactions between
business, NGO, and governmental activities.
> Examples: Johnson & Johnson and Tylenol; Exxon and the Valdez oil spill; Nestle and infant
formula; Shell and either Brent Spar or Nigeria; BP and the BTC pipeline; Nike and sweatshops;
the pharmaceutical industry and AIDS drugs in Africa; etc. Other examples might be considered
more constructive and cooperative in the spirit of public-private-nonprofit partnerships: Honeywells development initiatives in the Phillips neighborhood in Minneapolis. (See Goodpaster
and Nash, Policies and Persons: A Casebook in Business Ethics, 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill, 1998 and
4th Edition, published in March 2005.)
> Business-published examples: Increasingly companies publish mini-case studies on their web
sites. Rio Tinto, a global mining firm, lists more than 20 case studies under headings such as
sustainable development, land access, human rights, community relations, environment and
employment. (Accessed on the web November 2004). The UN Global Compact includes many
examples provided by companies.
14 |
6. The lobbying activities of corporations and business associations with reference to specific legislative, regulatory or intergovernmental CSR-related proposals provides another perspective on this historical period.
> Examples: A current case is the lobbying related to the UN Draft Norms on the Responsibilities
of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights.
Other examples could be drawn from international bodies or conventions (Kyoto Protocol) or
national regulatory agency histories (drug standards, labor issues, environmental regulatory proposals, health and safety, etc.).
In relation to each of these six approaches, several additional variables are relevant. Company size is one
critical variable. Second, different industries raise distinct issues and have adopted divergent approaches
to CSR. Third, a company whose mission is driven by CSR offers a unique perspective. Each presents
different challenges in terms of what information may already exist and whether original research is
needed to identify drivers and patterns of activity:
> Large and Transnational Corporations (TNCs): Much more is likely to be known and published about the CSR-related activity of major corporations although there does not appear to
be any historical overview.
Examples: Shell, Target, Johnson & Johnson, BP, Medtronic, Rio Tinto, Unilever, Nike and P&G
are typical. These companies publish annual reports on social and environmental impacts, are often
prominent targets of NGOs and media coverage, have developed policies and practices on topics
such as giving, human rights, and labor standards among others, participate in major conferences on
CSR, are active in business associations at the national and international levels where CSR may be
addressed, and have made substantial staffing and resource commitments to support CSR.
> Industry: CSR issues have frequently led to collective responses at the industry level in addition to
action by individual firms. Often these have developed through multi-sector partnerships bringing
governmental bodies and NGOs to the table to develop principles and practice standards.
Examples: One industry-focused initiative is the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
(EITI), launched by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development but developed by a multi-sectoral group including industry (oil, mining, etc), government, international bodies, and NGOs. The EITI includes principles, actions and has developed
a reporting framework. Similar efforts have developed in the apparel industry the Fair Labor
Association (FLA) and the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI). Another example is the Voluntary
Principles on Security and Human Rights, the product of joint efforts by the U.K., the U.S., industry
and NGOs.
> Medium or Small Companies (SMEs): Very little research or writing appears to exist on the CSRrelated activity of SMEs although this is of increasing concern in the U.K. and Europe.
Examples: The Business of Giving Back, a 2002 survey of business giving and community involvement in Minnesota covering over 500 business establishments; The Conscience of Corporate Citizenship by Terry Besser, examining small business in small towns across Iowa; and a Wisconsin
survey of entrepreneurs which was cited above. The Ashridge Centre for Business and Society in the
U.K. has profiled practices across a range of mid-sized companies. The Institute of Directors (IoD)
in London has surveyed its members, many from smaller and mid-sized companies, on CSR. Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) conferences and Center for Corporate Citizenship conferences
have highlighted practices of a variety of companies, large and small, and some from around the
globe. The European Union has launched an initiative called Corporate Social Responsibility for
SMEs that includes cases studies of CSR practice in small and mediumsized enterprises.
15 |
V. Current (and Recurrent) Debates and Developments
ur fifth and final lens approaches the history of CSR through analysis of the issues that have been
and are being contested about the role of business in society. Below is a tentative overview of key
issues currently under discussion. It provides a sense of how CSR has been and continues to be redefined during the time frame in question.
>> Challenging the Institution of Business
Some critics but by no means all challenge the legal and institutional structure of business.
The notion that prime legal allegiance should be accorded to shareholders is questioned. Corporate governance has come under attack. The lack of voice for stakeholders, sometimes called a
democracy deficit is cited as a fundamental flaw (a phrase often applied to organizations like
the WTO). And some argue that an institution focused on serving only shareholders and meeting short-term market expectations will inevitably shift costs onto the public sector and fail to
meet broader public interests.
Examples: For a strong institutional critique see The Corporation by Joel Bakan. Recent corporate
scandals have resulted in legislation and regulatory measures attempting to improve governance
and hold companies accountable, at least for accurate financial reporting.
>> Standards Voluntary or Required
Far more often, the role of governmental institutions in regulating business and providing incentives for CSR has been the subject of continuing debate. Over the past three decades, numerous
codes or standards for business conduct have been promulgated by a wide range of organizations,
and typically adherence has been voluntary. However, there are many instances of CSR practices
and standards being transformed into legal requirements or at least given legal sanction. In the
1960s, the US tax code was amended to encourage corporate giving by making a charitable gift
tax deductible. Pressure to raise standards by embedding them in law led to the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in 1969, creation of the EPA and a succession of laws and
regulations relating to water and air quality. Increasingly in the 1990s, NGOs and sometimes
governments -- have pressed international bodies to embed standards for business conduct in a
wide range of conventions connected to the UN, the OECD, the ILO, and the WTO.
NGOs have argued that voluntarism may work for a few industry leaders but fails to deal with
laggards and the broad spectrum of companies. Business has countered that embedding requirements in law is a mistake because standards are vague and a legalistic compliance approach will
undercut rather than foster innovative best practices. Debate over the development of the UN
Draft Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights is an example.
>> Who Sits at the Table
During the past two decades, many more companies, NGOs, national governments, and intergovernmental organizations have become engaged in CSR debates and practices. More importantly, CSR has become a global debate and a global movement (perhaps a collection of movements) in the economically developed North and in the developing South. Today, it is not
uncommon for the movement to be challenged for being dominated by NGOs and companies
from the U.S. and Europe. NGOs, CSOs, companies and governments in the South are demanding that their voices be heard.
16 |
>> CSR has been Issue-driven

The emergence of specific issues has provided the framework within which CSR has been
defined, management models articulated, standards debated, and best practices developed. Issues
can take multiple forms. They can be topical or structural or a combination. Topical issues
include, for example: urban renewal, diversity, human rights, sweatshops, clean water, deforestation, etc. Structural issues include: challenges to corporate power, what some call a democracy
deficit, the influence of business in setting public policy, access to information which could be
addressed through greater transparency and reporting, and the ways global rules for competition
and economic development are set by organizations such as the WTO.
>> Scope of Responsibility
Much of the history of CSR is replete with issues and controversies that have led to expanding the scope of a companys responsibility beyond what happens inside company walls or even
its immediate environ. Examples include the extent of the tobacco industrys responsibility for
negative health impacts despite selling a legal product with a warning label and the apparel
industrys responsibility for labor standards of subcontrators.
>> The Business Case:
There have been continuing efforts over the past two decades to demonstrate a business case for
CSR. The case can take many forms. If workforce focused, it is articulated in terms of how CSR
can aid in attracting and retaining talent. For the public sector and community, the case might
be built around how CSR enhances reputation and earns the trust of legislators and regulators.
Framed for consumers, CSR has been seen as a factor in customer retention and loyalty.
Frequent efforts have been made to link CSR or corporate social performance (CSP) to corporate financial performance (CFP). CSR professionals inside business have sought to demonstrate the business case as a means of justifying corporate giving, community relations budgets
and volunteer initiatives. Academics too have sought proof that CSR pays off financially and in
terms stock value for business. Marc Orlitsky, for example, has provided a meta-analysis of studies demonstrating the financial return on corporate investment in CSR.
>> Measurement and Assessment:
Interest in measuring CSR performance, including specific impacts and outcomes, has increased.
Motivations range from internal justification of CSR budgets to enabling companies to report
CSR outcomes to internal and external stakeholders. Efforts to conceptualize a social audit date
back many decades with considerable work done in the 1970s (Bauer and Fenn, 1973 and Carroll
and Beiler, 1975). Assessment of corporate social performance (CSP) was the subject of numerous articles (Swanson 1995, Davenport, 2000 Wood 1991 and Woods and Jones 1995). The
move toward triple bottom line reporting in the mid-1990s challenged companies to find ways
to measure social outcomes as well as more quantifiable financial and environmental impacts.
Examples: The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a multi-sector effort to provide a common
measurement framework. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index and the FTSE4Good Index provide information to investors. Similarly investment funds focused on social, environmental and
ethical investing have developed assessment frameworks to rate company performance. The U.K.
Corporate Responsibility Index, launched by BITC in 2002, offers a voluntary benchmark on
community, environment, marketplace and workplace performance.
17 |
For an individual company interested in gauging its own performance, the Self Assessment and
Improvement Process (SAIP), based on the Caux Principles for Business, provides a measurement
framework. As Georges Enderle has pointed out, this approach introduces a dimension lacking
within other reporting and measurement systems, namely, a normative perspective on the data
a company measures and reports. That is, the SAIP places ethical weight on the performance
indicators, enabling a sophisticated assessment of a companys performance as a moral agent.
>> Stakeholder Engagement
Increasingly companies have sought ways to dialogue with key stakeholders to identify issues and
concerns and develop strategies for mitigating negative impacts and building positive relationships.
>> Assurance and Verification
As more companies produce social, environmental and triple bottom line reports, strategies
have arisen to ensure that those reports contain accurate and reliable information. The AA1000
Assurance Standard developed by AccountAbility (also known as the Institute for Ethical and
Social Accountability) in the U.K. is a leading approach to assurance and verification. It achieves
assurance through extensive stakeholder engagement.
>> PrivatePublic Boundaries
On occasion, NGOs have expressed concern about blurring public-private boundaries, arguing that governmental responsibilities properly assigned to the state have been shifted to business organizations. Host Government Agreements or HGAs can be a point of friction. Some
NGOs have asserted, for example, that the HGAs related to the BakuTbilisiCeyhan (BTC)
pipeline provided companies with too much latitude over environmental impacts by ceding some
environmental oversight from governments to the companies. (The pipeline runs through Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia.)
>> Transparency and Reporting
Some NGOs have increased pressure on companies to disclose corporate lobbying positions and
activities. The suspicion appears to be that companies say one thing through their public relations and CSR programs but lobby governments and international bodies in ways that will limit
company responsibilities.
>> The CSR Profession and Infrastructure
Although not often discussed, a CSR profession has emerged. Companies went from making
giving decisions out of the CEOs office to having professional giving and community relations staff. Consultancies and think tanks have arisen to bolster research, develop management
models and strategies, and enhance measurement systems. Organizations have arisen to provide
professional development and executive training on CSR (The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College is a notable example. The CSR Academy efforts in Europe give impetus
as well.) NGOs, too, have become far more sophisticated in collaborating, building campaigns,
communicatingboth with companies and their stakeholders. Even major firms in accounting,
public relations, and investment (with social investment portfolios) have brought their expertise to bear on improving CSRrelated methodologies. Concepts such as strategic philanthropy,
cause-related marketing, and the growing interest in integration of all potentially CSRrelated
functions within a business are products of this increased sophistication. [Note: As of 2004, Boston
Colleges Center for Corporate Citizenship is engaged in a study of integration of CSRrelated functions
in a select group of businesses.]
18 |
VI. Bibliography and Resources Database
he first stage of this project was to conduct a literature search. Several frameworks were used for
gathering and organizing the data. The Minnesota Principles and Caux Roundtable Principles for
Business, the SAIP (2003), The Corporate Social Performance Model (Carroll, 1979), and the work of
major CSR NGOs provided a sense of the parameters that would be useful for a search and capture the
contemporary interest of corporate responsibility in the realms of academia and business alike.
A major challenge in searching the literature is the disparate terminology related to this topic. The
terms included but were not limited to social responsibility of business, corporate responsibility, corporate social responsibility, corporate social performance, corporate citizenship, business and society, and
corporate accountability. In addition, the subject comes up in articles dealing with a specific CSR-related
issue but perhaps never mentioning CSR per se. This prompts many to ask what do you mean by CSR?
For this preliminary project we have tried to keep that question open and cast a broad net.
The sheer volume of articles, books, speeches, online sources, and websites is overwhelming, and
we have no illusions that this survey is comprehensive. A Google search of the term corporate social
responsibility yielded over 23 million hits on the web. At the very least, a few hundred scholarly articles
and books appear to be relevant as either sources for this project. The literature search also included
newspapers and magazines, speeches from professionals, opinion polls, and surveys conducted by nonprofit entities. Excluded from these findings were book reviews, various editorials, and rebuttals. The
articles and books were not limited to a particular discipline, industry, or corporation size.
There is one very important caveat. Given the limits on this inquiry, we have not explored what is
imagined to be a vast quantity of raw materials from business: the texts of CEO speeches, memoranda,
corporate reports and documents, etc. A small collection of some of the speeches and writing from J.
Irwin Miller was examined and underscores the potential value of searching out such materials.
Historical Perspective: The primary task was to identify objective surveys, studies, or rigorous research
that illuminated the history of corporate social responsibility. Morrell Healds book, The Social Responsibilities of Business (1970), is an extensive historical account of the development of the relationship
between the public responsibility of business and community welfare from 1900 to 1960. Healds history
covers the first fifteen years of the post-World War II time frame and provides insight into the thinking
and practices of earlier business leaders. Another pre-period piece is Nicholas Eberstadts What History
Tells Us About Corporate Responsibility (1973), a study of 19th century American business. A very
recent and highly critical work is Joel Bakans film The Corporation (2004).
Several articles explore and review the progress of corporate responsibility even though they are
focused on a specific subject or within a particular discipline. Two such articles that provide milestones
are Prestons Social Issues in Management: An Evolutionary Perspective (1986) and Carrolls (1999) Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct. As with Healds book, the articles serve
as important building blocks for the overall understanding of how corporate responsibility has been
influenced and transformed by a variety of social, political, and economic events.
Database: A literature database has been developed as a starting point for managing the large volume of information that could flow through this project. Along with the publications identified to-date
are lists (certainly far from comprehensive at this point) of centers, potential writers / contributors and
potential peer reviewers.
19 |
The benefits of using a database are:

> It allows for the lists to be sorted by various components alphabetically by author, journal, year
printed, or publication type, to name a few.
> It provides the ability to search by key words.
> The different lists can linked to one another. For example, a reviewers affiliation and contact
information can include any articles by that author we have in the database.
> The database can include an abstract, or description, of the publication.
> The database can be updated continuously as new information is secured.
The ultimate benefit of the database, however, is the ability to transfer the information and knowledge
captured thus far in a format that is accessible and usable by future researchers. This format also allows
for quick and easy dissemination to a large group of people.
Following are brief overviews of the different parts of the database we have begun and the type of information contained within the respective headings.
>> Publications
An array of publications and other resources have been gathered to represent the various contributors that have, or currently are grappling with the history of corporate social responsibility.
Scholarly journals
Scholarly books
Professional essays
Speeches
International projects
Conference Proceedings
Reports
Editorials, newspaper and magazine articles
Online resources
>> Organizations/Centers
Throughout this historical period particular entities have been formed to assist in dealing with
concepts and application of corporate social responsibility or to provide services to business. This
section provides contact information plus the dates the entity was founded and its primary focus.
The entries include, but are not limited to [See Appendix D]:
Centers at academic institutions
Think tanks
NGOs
Associations
International coalitions
While the database categories noted above are extensive, there is room for expansion. Comments from
potential contributors and analysis of sources identified thus far suggest that identifying additional
source material may be useful, even essential. Following are potential areas of inquiry:
> Corporate histories
> Biographies of selected corporate leaders
> NGO histories and profiles of NGO founders and leaders
> Additional opinion or business surveys from within the time period under study
20 |
VII. Creating a CSR Timeline
graphical representation of events and developments along a timeline from 1945 to the present
could be a useful method for illustrating the expanding and accelerating level of activity related
to CSR as well as the evolution of particular issues. The timeline presented here offers a very selective
illustration and captures only a fraction of the developments that could be represented. [See Figure 3 on
page 22.] A much more sophisticated approach, and based on more intensive research than was possible
at this time, could reveal parallel timelines organized to represent different issues or perspectives. For
example, a timeline could be created for corporate philanthropy, another on the environment (and within
that, sublevel timelines on forestry, clean water, clean air, waste, etc.), and still others on transparency and
reporting, human rights, etc.
In addition to the graphic on page 12, please refer to Appendix E for further examples of events,
research, organizational developments, legislation, etc. that represent components of the CSR story over
the timeline.
21 |
22 |
Appendix A. Definitions of CSR
f particular note is the work of Archie Carroll who conducted a thorough analysis of the evolution
of the concept of CSR from 1950 through the 1990s. [See Carroll, Corporate Social Responsibility:
Evolution of a Definitional Construct, 1999.] Most of the examples below (but not all) are from Carrolls
analysis. Citations are those noted by Carroll in his article.
It would be useful to extend this kind of analysis to include international perspectives and developments, although a few international citations drawn from web sources have been included at the end of
this section.
Fortune Magazine survey (1946)
Social consciousness (of businessmen) businessmen were responsible for the consequences of their
actions in a sphere somewhat wider than that covered by their profit-and-loss statements. Note: 93.% of
businessmen responding agreed with this statement. [Cited in Bowen 1953, p. 44]
Bowen (1953)
It refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow
those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society.
Davis (1960, p. 70)
Social responsibility businessmens decisions and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond the
firms direct economic or technical interest.
Frederick (1960, p. 60)
[Social responsibilities] mean that businessmen should oversee the operation of an economic system that
fulfills the expectations of the public. And this means in turn that production and distribution should
enhance total socio-economic welfare. Social responsibility in the final analysis implies a public posture
toward societys economic and human resources and a willingness to see that those resources are used for
broad social ends and not simply for the narrowly circumscribed interests of private persons and firms.
Davis and Blomstrom (1966, p. 12)
Social responsibility, therefore, refers to a persons obligation to consider the effects of his decisions
and actions on the whole social system. Businessmen apply social responsibility when they consider the
needs and interest of others who may be affected by business actions. In so doing, they look beyond their
firms narrow economic and technical interests.
Johnson (1971, p. 50)
Conventional wisdom holds: A socially responsible firm is one whose managerial staff balances a multiplicity of interests. Instead of striving only for larger profits for its stockholders, a responsible enterprise
also takes into account employees, suppliers, dealers, local communities, and the nation.
Alternatively: Socially responsibility states that businesses carry out social programs to add profits
to their organization. (p.54)
Alternatively: The third approach of social responsibility assumes that the prime motivation of the
business firm is utility maximization; the enterprise seeks multiple goals rather than only maximum
profit. (p. 59)
Committee for Economic Development (CED) (1971)
In Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations report: business functions by public consent and
its basic purpose is to serve constructively the needs of society to the satisfaction of society. (p.11)
Further that Business is being asked to assume broader responsibilities to society than ever before
23 |
and to serve a wider range of human values. Business enterprises, in effect, are being asked to contribute
more to the quality of American life than just supplying quantities of goods and services. Inasmuch as
business exists to serve society, its future will depend on the quality of managements response to the
changing expectations of the public. (p. 16)
Steiner (1971)
Business is and must remain fundamentally an economic institution, but it does have responsibilities
to help society achieve its basic goals and does, therefore, have social responsibilities. The larger a company becomes, the greater are these responsibilities, but all companies can assume some share of them
at no cost and often at a short-run as well as a long-run profit. Further It is a philosophy that looks
at the social interest and the enlightened self-interest of business over the long run as compared with the
old, narrow, unrestrained short-run self-interest. (p.164)
Manne & Wallich (1972)
Manne: To qualify as socially responsible corporate action, a business expenditure or activity must be
one for which the marginal returns to the corporation are less than the returns available from some alternative expenditure, must be purely voluntary, and must be an actual corporate expenditure rather than a
conduit for individual largesse. (pp. 4-6)
Wallich: I take responsibility to mean a condition in which the corporation is at least in some measure
a free agent. [not an obligation imposed by law]
Samuelson (1971)
Not quite a definition but. a large corporation these days not only may engage in social responsibility, it had damn well better try to do so. [speaking more to public expectations than a definition]
Davis (1973)
refers to the firms consideration of, and response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical,
and legal requirements of the firm. (p.312)
It is the firms obligation to evaluate in its decision-making processes the effects of its decisions on the
external social system in a manner that will accomplish social benefits along with the traditional economic gains which the firm seeks. (p. 313)
It means that social responsibility beings where the law ends. A firm is not being socially responsible
if it merely complies with the minimum requirements of the law, because this is what any good citizen
would do. ( p. 313)
Eilbert and Parket (1973)
Perhaps the best way to understand social responsibility is to think of it as good neighborliness. The
concept involves two phases. On one hand, it means not doing things that spoil the neighborhood. On
the other, it may be expressed as the voluntary assumption of the obligation to help solve neighborhood
problems.
Orthe commitment of a business or business, in general, to an active role in the solution of broad
social problems (p. 7)
Eells and Walton (3rd Edition, 1974)
In its broadest sense, corporate social responsibility represents a concern with the needs and goals of
society which goes beyond the merely economic. And a broad concern with businesss role in
supporting and improving the social order. (p. 247)
24 |
J. Irwin Miller (1975 in Organizational Dynamics)

Not cited by Carroll
Asked how to balance your responsibilities in five areas (employees, consumers, community both adjacent to a facility and to the larger community, and stockholders), Miller responded:
Every good manager subconsciously senses this as he plunges deeper into his job. Such a judicious balancing isnt something he ought to do; it is something he has to do. The corporation has
a real structure quite apart from its legal structure. You cannot operate without the shareholders
capital; they dont have to pay it in. You cannot exist or operate without employees; they dont
have to work for you. You cannot exist or operate without a community that is stable, that has a
reasonable crime rate, adequate schools, and so on; the citizens dont have to welcome you to it.
You cannot exist without customers; they dont have to buy from you. Even suppliers dont have
to sell to you if you dont give them a decent mark-up and otherwise treat them fairly. You have
to operate in a fair and balanced way, such that all of these people will want to give you their
services, their funds, or their business. You have to treat them equally because they are all equally
essential. Otherwise, you dont have a business for very long. In other words, corporate social
responsibility is not a matter of what you ought to do but really is a matter of looking at the total
realities and total requirements of a given situation.
Sethi (1975)
Distinguishing social obligation, social responsibility, and social responsiveness: Thus social responsibility implies bringing corporae behavior up to a level where it is congruent with the prevailing social
norms, values, and expectations of performance. (p. 62)
Social responsiveness by contrast is the adaptation of corporate behavior to social needs.
Preston and Post (1975)
.the term social responsibility to refer only to a vague and highly generalized sense of social concern
that appears to underlie a wide variety of ad hoc managerial policies and practices.
Carroll (1979)
The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time. (p. 500)
Jones (1980)
Corporate social responsibility is the notion that corporations have an obligation to constituent groups
in society other than stockholders and beyond that prescribed by law and union contract. Two facets
of this definition are critical. First, the obligation must be voluntarily adopted; behavior influenced by
coercive forces of law or union contract is not voluntary. Second, the obligation is a broad one, extending
beyond the traditional duty to shareholders to other societal groups such as customers, employees, suppliers, and neighboring communities. (pp. 59-60)
Carroll (1983, p. 604)
In my view, CSR involves the conduct of a business so that it is economically profitable, law abiding,
ethical and socially supportive. To be socially responsible then means that profitability and obedience
to the law are foremost conditions to discussing the firms ethics and the extent to which it supports the
society in which it exists with contributions of money, times and talent. Thus, CSR is composed of four
parts: economic, legal, ethical and voluntary or philanthropic.
[Note: In this update, he substituted voluntary or philanthropic for discretionary used in his earlier definition perhaps reflecting the preponderance of practice in the business community.]
25 |
Drucker ( 1984)
But the proper social responsibility of business is to tame the dragon, that is to turn a social problem
into economic opportunity and economic benefit, into productive capacity, into human competence, into
well-paid jobs, and into wealth. (p. 62)
[Note: Druckers view seems to echo the model articulated by William Norris, Chairman of Control Data in the
late 1970s and early 1980s.]
Carroll ( 1991)
It is suggested here that four kinds of social responsibilities constitute total CSR: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. Furthermore, these four categories or components of CSR might be depicted as
a pyramid. (p. 40)
And The CSR firm should stive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical, and be a good corporate
citizen. (p. 43)
Other definitions:
More recent definitions of CSR drawn from other sources and international organizations include:
World Bank
Corporate Social Responsibility is a term describing a companys obligations to be accountable to all of

its stakeholders in all its operations and activities. Socially responsible companies consider the full scope
of their impact on communities and the environment when making decisions, balancing the needs of
stakeholders with their need to make a profit.
European Union
CSR is behaviour by business over and above legal requirements. [A definition that in part responds
to pressure from some to embed CSR requirements in legal frameworks shifting them from voluntary
to legally required obligations.]
CSRwire.com
(Web-based clearinghouse for press releases, reports and news.)

This provides a practical example of how a public relations press service handles the definition: CSR
is defined as the integration of business operations and values, whereby the interests of all stakeholders
including investors, customers, employees, and the environment are reflected in the companys policies
and actions. (Accessed 2004)
UNRISD Conference Report
Corporate Responsibility and Development: Towards a New Agenda? 17-18 November 2003
At the core of this corporate social responsibility (CSR) agenda are specific policies and practices
involving codes of conduct, environmental management systems, stakeholder dialogues, community
investment and philanthropy, as well as reporting, auditing and certification related to social and environmental aspects.
26 |
Appendix B. CSR Topic List

[This list illustrates CSR-related topical areas as framed by CSRwire.com to categorize its clearinghouse of press releases, reports and news. It is only one example, offered here to illustrate the
scope of the field. ]
Definition: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is the integration of business operations and
values whereby the interests of all stakeholders including customers, employees, investors, the community, and the environment are reflected in the companys policies and actions.
BUSINESS ETHICS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ethics Training
Ethics Policy
Global Ethics
Ethical Marketing
Product Development
Pricing, Billing, Contracting
Product Quality and Safety
Consumer Privacy
Child Labor Policies

Discrimination Policies
Health and Safety
Codes of Conduct
Living Wage
Working Hours
COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Recruitment, Employment
Retention of Underutilized Workers
Financial Investments
Corporate or Retail Site Selection in Underserved Communities
Minority and Women Business Development
Minority Franchising and Dealerships
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Board Diversity
Board Terms and Selection Process
Director and CEO Compensation
Shareholder Engagement
ENVIRONMENT
Alternative Energy Sources

Climate Change
Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Forest Friendly Practices
Green Building or Product Design
Recycling Efforts t
Sustainable Business Practices
Water Conservation and Quality
CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS
Partnerships in the Community
Employee Giving and Matching Funds
Local and Global Community Involvement
Philanthropy
Product and Service Donations
Volunteerism
WORKPLACE
Diversity
Domestic Partner Benefits
Domestic Violence
Flexible Scheduling
Health and Safety
Childcare
Training
Unions
Workplace Culture
Workplace Violence
27 |
Source: CSRwire.com
Appendix C. Preliminary Bibliography

Aaronson, Susan Ariel. Corporate Responsibility in the Global Village: the British Role Model and the
American Laggard. Business & Society Review 108 (2003): 30938.
AccountAbility, Business for Social Responsibility and Brody Weiser Burns. Agriculture Sector Report.
Business & Economic Development, 2004.
AccountAbility, Business for Social Responsibility and Brody Weiser Burns. Financial Sector Report. Business & Economic Development, 2004.
AccountAbility, Business for Social Responsibility and Brody Weiser Burns. Mining Sector Report. Business & Economic Development, 2004.
AccountAbility, Business for Social Responsibility and Brody Weiser Burns. Pharmaceutical Sector Report.
Business & Economic Development, 2004.
Ackerman, Robert W. How Companies Respond to Social Demands. Harvard Business Review 51
(1973): 8898.
Adkins, Sue. Cause Related Marketing; Who Cares Wins. Oxford: Reed Educational and Professional
Publishing Ltd, 1999.
Anderson, Digby. Good Companies Dont Have Missions. Social Affairs Unit 35 (2000): n.pag.
Andrews, Kenneth R. Can the Best Corporations Be Made Moral?. Harvard Business Review 51
(1973): 5764.
Andriof, Jorg and Malcolm McIntosh, eds. Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship. N.p., 2001.
Arlow, Peter and Martin J. Cannon. Social Responsiveness, Corporate Structure, and Economic Performance. Academy of Management Review 7 (1982): 23541.
Arnold, Denis G. and Laura P. Hartman. Moral Imagination and the Future of Sweatshops. Business
and Society Review 108 (2003): 42561.
Asmus, Peter. 100 Best Corporate Citizens. Business Ethics 19 (2005): 2027.
Aupperle, Kenneth E., Archie B. Carroll, and John D. Hatfield. An Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability. Academy of Management Journal 28
(1985): 44663.
Aupperle, Kenneth, John D. Hatfield, and Archie B. Carroll. Instrument Development and Application
in Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Proceedings (1983): 36973.
Bakan, Joel. The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. New York: Free Press, 2004.
Baltzell, E. Bigby. Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia: Two Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Class
Authority and Leadership. NY: Free Press, 1979.
BankTrack. Principles, Profits or Just PR? Triple P Investments Under the Equator Principles. N.p.: June 2004.
Barker, T. C. Business History and the Business-Man. Business History 1 (1958): 1620.
Bauer, Raymond A. and Dan H. Fenn, Jr. What is a corporate social audit. Harvard Business Review 51
(1973): 37-48.
Bendell, Jem. Barricades and Boardrooms; A Contemporary History of the Corporate Accountability Movement.
UNRISD: June 2004.
Bendell, Jem et.al. 2003 Lifeworth Annual Review of Corporate Responsibility. N.p.: Lifeworth, Greenleaf
Publishing and the New Academy of Business, 2004.
Bendell, Jem et.al. 2004 Lifeworth Annual Review of Corporate Responsibility. N.p.: Lifeworth, Greenleaf
Publishing and the New Academy of Business, 2005.
Besser, Terry. The Conscience of Capitalism: Business Social Responsibility to Communities. Westport:
Praeger, 2002.
Blair, Maria E., Antony J. Bugg-Levine, and Thomas M. Rippin. The UNs Role in Corporate Social
Responsibility. McKinsey Quarterly 4 (2004): n.pag.
28 |
Boatright, John R. Business Ethics and the Theory of the Firm. American Business Law Journal 34
(1996): 21738.
Bockelman, Wilfred. Giving Corporations the Human Touch. Corporate Report (1979): 5761.
Bockelman, Wilfred. Culture of Corporate Citizenship: Minnesotas Business Legacy for the Global Future.
Lakeville, MN: Galde Press, 2000.
Bognanno, Mario F. and Morris M. Kleiner. Introduction: Labor Market Institutions and the Future
Role of Unions. Industrial Relations 31 (1992): 112.
Bollier, David. Aiming Higher: 25 Stories of How Companies Prosper by Combining Sound Management and
Social Vision. New York: Amacom, 1996.
Bonsignore, Michael. Minnesota Heals: Hope, Education and Law & Safety. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota
Center for Corporate Responsibility, 1997.
Boulding, Kenneth E. The Organizational Revolution: A Study in the Ethics of Economic Organization; with
a Commentary by Reinhold Niebuhr. New York: Harper, 1953.
Bowen, Howard R. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. New York: Harper, 1953.
Bowie, Norman. New Directions in Corporate Social Responsibility. Business Horizons 34 (1991): 5665.
Brammer, Stephen and Andrew Millington. The Evolution of Corporate Charitable Contributions in
the UK Between 1989 and 1999: Industry Structure and Stakeholder Influences. Business Ethics: A European
Review 12 (2003): 21628.
Brockett, Patrick L. and E. Susan Tankersley. The Genetics Revolution, Economics, Ethics and Insurance. Journal of Business Ethics 16 (1997): 166176.
Building Business Investment in Community (BBIC). The Business of Giving Back: 2002 Survey of Business
Giving and Community Involvement. Minnesota: Minnesota Business Giving, 2002.
Burke, Edmund M. When It Hits the Fan. Across the Board 34 (1997): 3338.
Burke, James. Address . Advertising Council. 16 November 1983.
Burlingame, Dwight F. and David A. Kaufmann. Indiana Business Contributions to Community Service.
Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, 1995.
Bush, Victoria D., Beverly T. Venable, and Alan J. Bush. Ethics and Marketing on this Internet: Practitioners Perceptions of Societal, Industry and Company Concerns. Journal of Business Ethics 23 (2000):
23748.
Business for Social Responsibility. Suppliers Perspectives on Greening the Supply Chain. N.p., 2001.
Business for Social Responsibility. Taking the Temperature of CSR Leaders. Survey Produced by Business
for Social Responsibility, 13 January 2005.
Business for Social Responsibility PricewaterhouseCoopers (Denmark). Public Sector Support for the
Implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Global Supply Chains: Conclusions from Practical
Experience. Study Prepared for the CSR Practice Foreign Investment Advisory Service Investment Climate
Department, December 2004.
Butler, Stephen. Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility. Vital Speeches of the Day 63 (1997):
55961.
Cannon, Tom. Corporate Responsibility: Issues in Business Ethics, Governance, Roles, and Responsibilities.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1994.
Carroll, Archie B. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. Academy of
Management Review 4 (1979): 497505.
Carroll, Archie B. Corporate Social Responsibility. Vital Speeches of the Day 49 (1983): 6048.
Carroll, Archie B . Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business &
Society 38 (1999): 26895.
Carroll, Archie B . Ethical Challenges for Business in the New Millennium: Corporate Social Responsibility and Models of Management Morality. Business Ethics Quarterly 10 (2000): 3342.
29 |
Carroll, Archie B . Managing Ethically with Global Stakeholders: A Present and Future Challenge.
Academy of Management Executive 18 (2004): 11420.
Carroll, Archie B . The Four Faces of Corporate Citizenship. Business & Society Review 100101
(1998): 17.
Carroll, Archie B . The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Towards the Moral Management of
Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons 34 (1991): 3948.
Carroll, Archie B. and George W. Beiler. Landmarks in the Evolution of the Social Audit. Academy of
Management Journal 18 (1975): 58999.
Carroll, Archie B. and Gerald T. Horton. Do Joint Corporate Social Responsibility Programs Work?
Business & Society Review Summer (1994): 2428.
The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College. Mapping the Future of Corporate Citizenship:
Redefining the Markers for Business Success. 2005 International Corporate Citizenship Conference. April 2005.
Center for Ethical Business Cultures. Mergers: Implications for Corporate Philanthropy and the Community.
Minneapolis, MN: Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 2001.
Chamberlain, Neil W. Remaking American Values: Challenge to a Business Society. New York: Basic
Books, 1977.
Chamberlain, Neil W. The Limits of Corporate Responsibility. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
Chandler, Alfred D., Jr. The Beginnings of Big Business in American Industry. Business History Review
33 (1959): 131.
Chandler, Alfred D., Jr.. Management Decentralization: An Historical Analysis. The Business History
Review 30 (1956): 11174.
Chase, Stuart, Stanley H. Ruttenberg, Edwin G. Nourse, and William B. Given. The Social Responsibility
of Management. New York: New York University, 1950.
Chrisman, James J. and Archie B. Carroll . SMR Forum: Corporate ResponsibilityReconciling Economic and Social Goals. Sloan Management Review 25 (1984): 5965.
Clarke, Julia and Monica Gibson-Sweet. The Use of Corporate Social disclosures in the Management
of Reputation and Legitimacy: A Cross Sectoral Analysis of UK Top 100 Companies. Business Ethics: A
European Review 8 (1999): 513.
Cochran, Thomas C. Problems and Challenges in Business History Research with Special Reference to
Entrepreneurial History. Bulletin of the Business Historical Society 24 (1950): 11319.
Cole, Arthur H. A History of Business in the United States. The Business History Review 32 (1958):
45155.
Collins, James and Jerry I. Porras. Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. New York :
Harper Business, 1997.
Collins, Marylyn. Global Corporate PhilanthropyMarketing Beyond the Call of Duty? European
Journal of Marketing 27 (1993): 4658.
Committee for Economic Development. Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations. N.p., 1971.
Committee of Inquiry. A New Vision for Business. N.p., 1999.
Connecticut Council for Philanthropy. Connecticut Companies: Their Commitment to Communities: A Survey of Business Engagement in Communities. Storrs, CT: Center for Survey Research & Analysis, 2002.
The Business Roundtable. Corporate Social Responsibility in China: Practices by U.S. Companies. N.p., 2000.
Council on Foundations. Measuring the Business Value of Corporate Philanthropy Tool Kit. Indianapolis, IN:
Walker Information, Inc., 2001.
Coutsoukis, Planton, et. al. Community Relations. Boston: The Center for Corporate Citizenship at
Boston College, 2001.
Cowie, Jefferson. Capital Moves: RCAs 70Year Quest for Cheap Labor. Ithaca: Cornell University, 1999.
30 |
Crossley, David. Paternalism and Corporate Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 21 (1999): 291302.
Cruikshank, Jeffrey L. and David B. Sicilia. The Engine That Could : Seventy-five Years of Values-Driven
Change at Cummins Engine Company. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.
Davenport, Kim. Corporate Citizenship: A Stakeholder Approach for Defining Corporate Social Performance and Identifying Measures for Assessing It. Business & Society 39 (2000): 21019.
David, Donald K.. Business Responsibility in an Uncertain World. Harvard Business Review 27
(1949): 18.
Davis, Keith. Five Propositions for Social Responsibility. Business Horizons 18 (1975): 1924.
Davis, Keith. The Case For and Against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities. Academy of
Management Journal 16 (1973): 31222.
Davis, Keith. Trends in Organizational Design. Academy of Management Proceedings 1973: 16.
Davis, Keith . Can Business Afford to Ignore Social Responsibilities? California Management Review 2
(1960): 7076.
Davis, Keith . Understanding The Social Responsibility Puzzle. Business Horizons 10 (1967): 4550.
Dawkins, Cedric E. Corporate Welfare, Corporate Citizenship, and the Question of Accountability.
Business & Society 41 (2002): 26991.
Dayton, Kenneth. The Case for Corporate Philanthropy. Midwest Research Institute. N.p. 13 December 1979.
Dayton, Kenneth. The Five Percent Solution. Cleveland 50 Club, 1979.
De George, Richard T. Business Ethics. Third Edition. New York: Macmillan, 1990.
De George, Richard T. The Status of Business Ethics: Past and Future. Journal of Business Ethics 6
(1987): 20110.
Dean, Peter J . Examining the Profession and the Practice of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics
16 (1997): 163749.
Dempsey, Bernard W. The Roots of Business Responsibility. Harvard Business Review 27 (1949):
393404.
Diamond, Sigmund. The Reputation of the American Businessman. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1955.
Dierkes, Meinolf Antal and Ariane Berthoin. Whither Corporate Social Reporting: Is It Time to
Legislate?. California Management Review 28 (1986): 10621.
Donaldson, Thomas. The Stakeholder Revolution and the Clarkson Principles. Business Ethics Quarterly
12 (2002): 10711.
Donaldson, Thomas. The Ethics of International Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Donaldson, Thomas and Patricia H. Werhane. Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999.
Dowling, William F. Conversation with J. Irwin Miller. Organizational Dynamics 4 (1975): 3148.
Drucker, Peter. The Meaning of Corporate Social Responsibility. California Management Review 26
(1984): 5363.
Drucker, Peter. The Concept of the Corporation. New York: John Day Co., 1946.
Drumwright, Minete E. Socially Responsible Organizational Buying: Environmental Concern as a Noneconomic Buying Criterion. Journal of Marketing 58 (1994): 119.
Dunfee, Thomas W. and Thomas Donaldson. Contractarian Business Ethics: Current Status and Next
Steps. Business Ethics Quarterly 5 (1995): 17386.
Eberstadt, Nicholas N. What History Tells Us About Corporate Responsibility. Business & Society
Review/Innovation Autumn (1973): 7681.
Ebbers Made $11 Million on 21 Stock Offerings . The New York Times 31 Aug. 2002, n.p.
Edge, T. and C. Wells. An Annotated Bibliography on the Accountability of Multinational Corporations: a
Review of International Human Rights Law. Working Paper Series 12. Cardiff: BRASS Centre (2004): n.pag.
31 |
Edmunds, Stahrl W. Unifying Concepts in Business Responsibility. Academy of Management Review 2

(1977): 3845.
Eells, Richard. Corporation Giving in a Free Society. New York: Harper, 1956.
Eells, Richard and Clarence Walton. Conceptual Foundations of Business. Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin, 1974.
Eilbirt, Henry and I. Robert Parket. The Current Status of Corporate Social Responsibility. Business
Horizons 16 (1973): 514.
Elkington, John. Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Gabriola Island,
BC: New Society Publishers, 1998.
Enderle, Georges, ed. A Worldwide Survey of Business Ethics in the 1990s. Journal of Business Ethics
(Special Issue) 16 (1997): 1475603.
Engaging SMEs in Community and Social Issues. Business in the Community Publication, 2002.
Epstein, Edwin M. The Corporate Social Policy Process: Beyond Business Ethics, Corporate Social
Responsibility, and Corporate Social Responsiveness. California Management Review 29 (1987): 99114.
Epstein, Edwin, M. Business Ethics and Corporate Social Policy: Reflections on an Intellectual Journey,
1964-1996, and Beyond. Business and Society 37 (1998): 739.
The Ethics of Business. The Economist 22 Jan. 2005: 20-22.
Ettorre, Barbara. Evolution Inside the Boardrooms. Management Review 81 (1992): 1015.
European Multi Stakeholder Forum on Corporate Social Responsibility Final Results & Recommendations.
N.p., 2004.
Evans, George Heberton, Jr.. The Entrepreneur and Economic Theory: A Historical and Analytical
Approach. American Economic Review 39 (1949): 33648.
Fine, Lisa M. Between Two Worlds: Business Women in a Chicago Boarding House, 1900-1930. Journal of Social History 19 (1986): 51119.
Fombrun, Charles J., Naomi A. Gardberg, and Michael L. Barnett. Opportunity Platforms and Safety
Nets: Corporate Citizenship and Reputational Risk. Business & Society Review 105 (2000): 85106.
Ford Foundation. Win Win. New York: Ford Foundation, 2002.
Fortune Management Poll. Fortune March 1946: 19798.
A Fraud by Any Other Name . The New York Times 4 May 2003, n.p.
Frederick, William C. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Reagan Era and Beyond. California Management Review 25 (1983): 14557.
Frederick, William C. From CSR1 to CSR2: The Maturing of Business-and-Society Thought. Business
& Society 33 (1994): 15064.
Frederick, William C. Moving to CSR4. Business & Society 37 (1998): 4059.
Frederick, William C. Toward CSR3: Why Ethical Analysis is Indispensable and Unavoidable in Corporate Affairs. California Management Review 28 (1986): 12641.
Frederick, William C.. The Growing Concern Over Business Responsibility. California Management
Review 2 (1960): 5461.
Frederick, William C. and David M. Wasieleski. Evolutionary Social Contracts. Business & Society
Review 107 (2002): 283308.
Friedman, Lawrence J. and Mark D. McGarvie, eds. Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Friedman, Milton. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times
Magazine 13 September 1970.
Garten, Jeffrey E. The Mind of the CEO. New York : Basic Books, 2001.
Gatewood, Elizabeth and Archie B.Carroll. The Anatomy of Corporate Social Response: The Rely, Firestone 500, and Pinto Cases. Business Horizons 24 (1981): 916.
32 |
GolinHarris. Doing Well by Doing Good: The Trajectory of Corporate Citizenship in American Business. Corporate Citizenship Survey: 2004.
The Good Company. The Economist 22 January 2005: 3-4.
Goodpaster, Kenneth E. The Concept of Corporate Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 2 (1983):
122.
Goodpaster, Kenneth E. and Laura L. Nash. Policies and Persons: A Casebook in Business Ethics. Third
Edition. New York: McGrawHill, 1998.
Goodpaster, Kenneth E. and Thomas E. Holloran. In Defense of a Paradox. Business Ethics Quarterly 4
(1994): 42329.
Goodpaster, Kenneth E., T. Dean Maines, and Michelle D. Rovang. Stakeholder Thinking: Beyond Paradox to Practicality. Journal of Corporate Citizenship Autumn (2002): 93111.
Googins, Bradley. The Journey Towards Corporate Citizenship in the United States. Journal of Corporate
Citizenship 5 (2002): 85185.
Goopaster, Kenneth E. Business Ethics and Stake Holder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly 1 (1991):
5373.
Gordon, Robert A. Business Leadership in the Large Corporation. Berkeley: University of California, 1945.
Gras, N.S.B. and Henrietta M.Larson. Casebook in American Business History. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1939.
Graves, Samuel B., Kathleen Rehbein, and Sandra Waddock. Fad and Fashion in Shareholder Activism:
The Landscape of Shareholder Resolutions, 19881998. Business & Society Review 106 (2001): 293314.
Gray, Rob. Thirty Years of Social Accounting, Reporting and Auditing: What (If Anything) Have We
Learnt? Business Ethics: A European Review 10 (2001): 915.
Grayson, David and Adran Hodges. Everybodys Business. London: Dorling Kindersley, 2002.
Gutierrez, Roberto and Audra Jones. Corporate Social Responsibility in Latin America. Inter-American
Development Bank Workshop, 2004.
Hall, Holly. Globalization Could Erode Corporate Giving in U.S., Expert Warns. The Chronicle of Philanthropy 22 July 2004: 1719.
Handy, Charles. Whats a Business For? Harvard Business Review 50 (2002): 4955.
Hanson, Kirk O., Peter D. Hero, and James L. Koch. Corporate Community Involvement in Silicon Valley.
California: American Leadership ForumSilicon Valley Chapter and the Community Foundation of Santa
Clara County, 1998.
Harris, George T. Egghead in the Diesel Industry. Fortune 31 August 2002: n.pag.
Hay, Robert and Ed Gray. A Blow-By-Blow History of Business Social Responsibility. Management
Review 63 (1974): 5153.
Hay, Robert and Ed Gray. Social Responsibilities of Business Managers. Academy of Management Journal 17 (1974): 13543.
Heald, Morrell. The Social Responsibilities of Business: Company and Community, 19001960. Cleveland:
Case Western Reserve, 1988.
Hess, David. Social Reporting: A Reflexive Law Approach to Corporate Social Responsiveness. Journal
of Corporation Law 25 (1999): 4184.
Hojensgard, Niels and Ayo Wahlberg, Eds. It Simply Works Better! Campaign Report on European CSR
Excellence 2003-2004. Copenhagen: The Copenhagen Centre, 2003.
Holmes, Sandra L. Adapting Corporate Structure for Social Responsiveness. California Management
Review 21 (1978): 4754.
Holmes, Sandra L. Executive Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility. Business Horizons 19
(1976): 3440.
33 |
Hutchins, John G. B. Business History, Entrepreneurial History, and Business Administration. The
Journal of Economic History 18 (1958): 45366.
Interfaith Center of Corporate Responsibility. Principles for Global Corporate Responsibility: Bench
Marks for Measuring Business Performance. The Corporate Examiner 26 (1998): n.p.
International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO. The SME and the Global Market Place : an Analysis of Competitiveness Constraints. Geneva: ITC, 1997.
Jackson, Ira A. and Jane Nelson. Values-driven Performance: Seven Strategies for Delivering Profits with
Principles. Ivey Business Journal Nov.-Dec. 2004: 1-8.
Jackson, Ira A. and Jane Nelson. Profits with Principles. New York: Currency, 2004.
Jackson, Tim and Laurie Michaelis. Policies for Sustainable Consumption. Westminster, UK: Sustainable
Development Commission, September 2004.
Jayaraman, L. L. and Byung K. Min. Business Ethics: A Developmental Perspective on the Evolution of
the Free and Mature Corporation. Journal of Business Ethics 12 (1993): 66575
Jenkins, H.M. Corporate Social Responsibility: Engaging Small and Medium Sized Enterprises in the Debate.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Conference: University of Nottingham,
June 2004.
Jenkins, H.M . Small Businesses and Stakeholders: Towards Successful, Sustainable Companies. Working
Paper Series 24. Cardiff: BRASS Centre (2005): n.pag.
Johnson, Willa. Freedom and Philanthropy: An Interview With Milton Friedman. Business & Society
Review Fall 1989: 1118.
Jones, Ray and Audrey J. Murrell. Signaling Positive Corporate Social Performance. Business and Society
40 (2001): 5977.
Joyner, Brenda E. and Dinah Payne. Evolution and Implementation: A Study of Values, Business Ethics
and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 41 (2002): 297311.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. From Spare Change to Real Change: The Social Sector as Beta Site for Business
Innovation. Harvard Business Review 77 (1999): 12232.
Khan, A. Farooq and Adrian Atkinson. Managerial Attitudes to Social Responsibility: A Comparative
Study in India and Britain. Journal of Business Ethics 6 (1987): 41931.
Kieselbach, Thomas and Sabine Mader. Occupational Transitions and Corporate Responsibility in Layoffs: A European Research Project (SOCOSE). Journal of Business Ethics 39 (2002): 1320.
King, William R. Social Memory: The Five Percent Club. The Minnesota Keystone Awards, An Historical
Review 1975-1987. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Council on Foundations.
Kolk, Ans, Rob Van Tulder, and Carlijn Welters. International Codes of Conduct and Corporate Social
Responsibility: Can Transnational Corporations Regulate Themselves? Transnational Corporations 8 (1999):
14379.
Lager, Fred. Ben & Jerrys: The Inside Scoop : How Two Real Guys Built a Business with a Social Conscience and
a Sense of Humor. New Jersey: Three Rivers Press, 1995.
Laguarda, Nybia, et al. Adoption of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in Small and MediumSized
Enterprises. Inter-American Development Bank, 2004.
Larson, Henrietta M. Guide to Business History. Boston: Canner, 1948.
Lea, Ruth. Corporate Social Responsibility: IoD Member Opinion Survey 2002. London, England: Institute
of Directors, 2002.
Leaders: Bad Arguments Against the Good Company? Ethical Corporation (2005): n.p.
Lee, Dwight R. and Richard B. McKenzie. Corporate Failure as a Means to Corporate Responsibility.
Journal of Business Ethics 13 (1994): 969-78.
Lee, Orlan and Jonty Lim. Progressive Capitalism or Reactionary Socialism? Progressive Labour Policy,
34 |
Ageing Marxism and Unrepentant Early Capitalism in the Chinese Industrial Revolution. Business Ethics:
A European Review 10 2001: 97-107.
Lewin, Arie Y., et al. Corporate Citizenship in Japan: Survey Results from Japanese Firms. Journal of
Business Ethics 14 (1995): 83-101.
Lippke, Richard L. A Critique on Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 1 (1991): 36784.
Litvin, Daniel B. Empires of Profit: Commerce, Conquest and Corporate Responsibility. New York: Texere, 2003.
Longstreth, Bevis and H. David Rosenbloom. Corporate Social Responsibility and the Institutional Investor.
New York: Ford Foundation, Praeger Publishing, 1973.
Magna, Julie Engel, Philip Mirvis, Steven A. Rochlin and Kristin F. Zecchi. Integration: Critical Link for
Corporate Citizenship; Strategies and Stories from Eight Companies. Boston, MA: Center for Corporate Citizenship Research Report, 2005.
Magna, Julie Engel and Sapna Shah. Enduring Partnerships: Resilience, Innovation, Success. Boston, MA:
Center for Corporate Citizenship Research Report, 2005.
Maignan, Isabelle and O. C. Ferrell. Measuring Corporate Citizenship in Two Countries: The Case of
the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics 23 (2000): 28397.
Mamic, Ivanka. Implementing Codes of Conduct: How Businesses Mange Social Performance in Global Supply
Chain. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf, 2004.
Marens, Richard. Inventing Corporate Governance: The Mid-Century Emergence of Shareholder Activism. Journal of Business & Management 8 (2002): 36589.
Marinetto, M. The Historical Development of Business Philanthropy: Social Responsibility in the New
Corporate. Business History 41 (1999): 120.
Marsden, Chris. The New Corporate Citizenship of Big Business: Part of the Solution to Sustainability?
Business & Society Review 105 (2000): 925.
Martin, William F. and George Cabot Lodge . Our Society in 1985Business May Not Like It. Harvard Business Review 53 (1975): 14352.
Matten, Dirk, Andrew Crane, and Wendy Chapple. Behind the Mask: Revealing the True Face of Corporate Citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics 45 (2003): 10920.
McGuire, Joseph W. The Changing Nature of Business Responsibilities. Journal of Risk & Insurance 36
(1969): 5561.
Mescon, Timothy S. and Donn J. Tilson. Corporate Philanthropy: A Strategic Approach to the BottomLine. California Management Review 29 (1987): 4961.
Murphy, Patrick E. Corporate Ethics Statements: Current Status and Future Prospects. Journal of Business Ethics 14 (1995): 72740.
Nasi, Juha, Salme Nasi, Nelson Phillips, and Stelios Zygildopoulos. The Evolution of Corporate Social
Responsiveness: An Exploratory Study of Finnish and Canadian Forestry Companies. Business and Society
36 (1997): 296321.
Nelson, Jane and Simon Zadek. Partnership Alchemy: New Social Partnerships in Europe. Copenhagen: The
Copenhagen Centre, 2000.
Nelson, Marilyn Carlson. Pioneering Corporate Responsibility. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Center
for Corporate Responsibility, 12 November 1997.
NevinGattle, Kim. Predicting the Philanthropic Response of Corporations: Lessons from History.
Business Horizons 39 (1996): 1522.
Newcomer, Mabel. The Big Business Executive: The Factors That Made Him, 1900-1950. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.
Novak, Michael. Toward a Theology of the Corporation. Washington: American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research, 1981.
35 |
Oliver F. Williams and John W. Houck, eds. Neither the Hammer and Sickle Nor the Eye of the Needle:
One Hundred Years of Catholic Social Thought on Economic Systems. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1993.
Opler, Daniel. Monkey Business in Union Square: A Cultural Analysis of the Kelins Ohrbachs Strikes
of 193435. Journal of Social History 36:1 (2002): 14964.
Oppenhein, Jeremy M. Corporations as Global Citizens. McKinsey Quarterly 1 (2004): n.pag.
Orlitzky, Marc, et al. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Organization
Studies 24 (2003): 40311.
Paine, Lynn Sharp. Value Shift. New York: McGraw, 2003.
Pearson, Gordon. Making Profits and Sweet Music. Business Ethics: A European Review 9 (2000):
19199.
Peinado-Vara, Estrella. Corporate Social Responsibility in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington,
DC: Inter-American Development Bank, June 2004.
Pinkston, Tammie S. and Archie B. Carroll. A Retrospective Examination of CSR Orientations: Have
They Changed? Journal of Business Ethics 15 (1996): 199206.
Pinkston, Tammie S. and Archie B. Carroll . Corporate Citizenship Perspective and Foreign Direct
Investment in the US. Journal of Business Ethics 13 (1994): 15769.
Post, James E. Global Corporate Citizenship: Principles to Live and Work By. Business Ethics Quarterly
12 (2002): 14353.
Post, James E. Moving from Geographic to Virtual Communities: Global Corporate Citizenship in a
Dotcom World. Business & Society Review 105 (2000): 2746.
Post, James E. SMR Forum: Business, Society, and the Reagan Revolution. Sloan Management Review
24 (1983): 6773.
Post, James E. The Corporation and Public Policy in the 1990s. Journal of Organizational Change Management 4 (1991): 721.
Post, James E., ed. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy. Greenwich: JAI Press, 1991.
Potts, Stephen D, and Ingrid Lohr Matuszewski. Ethics and Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review 12 (2004): 17779.
Pratt, Jon and Edson W. Spencer. Dynamics of Corporate Philanthropy in Minnesota. Daedalus 129
(2000): 296318.
Preston, Lee E. Social Issues in Management: An Evolutionary Perspective. Academy of Management
Proceedings Supplement (1986): 5257.
PricewaterhouseCoopers Business for Social Responsibility. The Role of Bilateral Donors in Engaging with
CSR in Global Supply Chains. Swedish Partnership for Global Responsibility, 2004.
Profit and the Public Good. The Economist 22 January 2005: 1519.
Quarter, Jack. Beyond the Bottom Line: Socially Innovative Business Owners. Westport: Quorum Books, 2000.
Reed, Darryl. Three Realms of Corporate Responsibility: Distinguishing Legitimacy, Morality and Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 21 (1999): 2335.
Regan, Tom, ed. Just Business: New Introductory Essays in Business Ethics. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1983.
Rembert, Tracey C. CSR in the Crosshairs. Business Ethics 19 (2005): 3035.
Rivlin, Catherine A. The Corporate Role in the Not-So-Great Society. California Management Review
25 (1983): 15159.
Rochlin, Steven A. and Brenda Christoffer. Making the Business Case: Determining the Value of Corporate
Community Involvement. Boston: Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, 2000.
Roddick, Anita. Body and Soul: Profits with Principles. New York: Crown, 1991.
36 |
Santoni, G.J. The Employment Act of 1946: Some History Notes. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 1
November 1986.
Schwartz, Michael. Management as theSpirit of the Modern Age. Journal of Business Ethics 29 (2001):
18998.
Sen, Sankar and C.B. Bhattacharya. Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (2001): 22543.
Sethi, S. Prakash. Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: An Analytical Framework. California
Management Review 17 (1975): 5864.
Shareholder Values. The Economist 10 February 1996: 1314.
Sharfman, Mark. Changing Institutional Rules: The Evolution of Corporate Philanthropy, 18831953.
Business & Society 33 (1994): 23669.
Shepard, Jon M., Michael Betz and Lenahan OConnell. The Proactive Corporation: Its Nature and
Causes. Journal of Business Ethics 16 (1997): 100110.
Shepherd, Daniel, et al. Implementing Corporate Social Responsibility Measures in Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises in the Value Chain. Washington, DC: InterAmerican Development Bank, June 2004.
Sherwin, Douglas S. The Ethical Roots of the Business System. Harvard Business Review 61 (1983):
18392.
Simon, Francoise L. Global Corporate Philanthropy: A Strategic Framework. International Marketing
Review 12 (1995): 2037.
Smith, N. Craig. Corporate Social Responsibility: WHETHER OR HOW? California Management
Review 45 (2003): 5276.
Snider, Jamie, Ronald Hill Paul, and Diane Martin. Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century:
A View from the Worlds Most Successful Firms. Journal of Business Ethics 48 (2003): 17587.
Standberg, Coro. The Future of Corporate Social Responsibility. VanCity Credit Union, 2002.
Stark, Andrew. Whats the Matter with Business Ethics? Harvard Business Review 71 (1993): 3846.
Strand, Rich. A Systems Paradigm of Organizational Adaptations to the Social Environment. Academy
of Management Review 8 (1983): 9096.
Strickler, Frank. Cookbooks and Law Books: The Hidden History of Career Women in Twentieth Century America. Journal of Social History 10 (1976): 119.
SustianAbility and The Global Compact. Gearing Up: From Corporate Responsibility to Good Governance
and Scalable Solutions. SustainAbility, 2004.
Swanson, Diane L. Addressing a Theoretical Problem by Reorienting the Corporate Social Performance
Model. Academy of Management Review 20 (1995): 4364.
Takala, Tuomo. Ownership, Responsibility and LeadershipA Historical Perspective. International
Journal of Social Economics 26 (1999): 74251.
Tam, On Kit. Ethical Issues in the Evolution of Corporate Governance in China. Journal of Business
Ethics 37 (2002): 30320.
Trevino, Linda Klebe . Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A PersonSituation Interactionist
Model. Academy of Management Review 11 (1986): 60117.
Tuzzolino, Frank and Barry R. Armandi. A NeedHierarchy Framework for Assessing Corporate Social
Responsibility. Academy of Management Review 6 (1981): 2128.
Unhappy Families. The Economist 11 February 1997: 2125.
Union of Concerned Executives. The Economist 22 January 2005: 610.
United Kingdom. 1995 Pension Act. Parliament: July 1995.
Using Environmental Paradigms to Understand and Change an Organizations Response to Stakeholders.
Journal of Organizational Change Management 14 (2001): 31434.
37 |
Utting, Peter, Desiree Abrahams, and Anita Tobmez, eds. Corporate Social Responsibility and Development: Towards a New Agenda? Report of the UNRISD Conference. Geneva, 1718 November 2003.
van Gelder, Jan Willem. The Financing of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Project. Research Paper Prepared for
Focus on Finance, 2003.
Vidaver-Cohen, Deborah and Barbara W. Altman. Corporate Citizenship in the New Millennium:
Foundation for an Architecture of Excellence. Business & Society Review 105 (2000): 14568.
Vogel, David. The Study of Social Issues in Management: A Critical Appraisal. California Management
Review 28 (1986): 14251.
Waddell, Steve. New Institutions for the Practice of Corporate Citizenship: Historical, Intersectoral, and
Developmental Perspective. Business & Society Review 105 (2000): 10726.
Waddock, Sandra. Creating Corporate Accountability: Foundational Principles to Make Corporate
Citizenship Real. Journal of Business Ethics 50 (2004): 31327.
Waddock, Sandra. Parallel Universes: Companies, Academics, and the Progress of Corporate Citizenship. Business & Society Review 109 (2004): 542.
Waddock, Sandra. Relationships: The Real Challenge of Corporate Global Citizenship? Business &
Society Review 105 (2000): 4762.
Waddock, Sandra. The Multiple Bottom Lines of Corporate Citizenship: Social Investing. Business &
Society Review 105 (2000): 32345.
Waddock, Sandra A.and Mary-Ellen Boyle. The dynamics of change in corporate community relations.
California Management Review 37 (1995): 12540.
Ward, Halina, Tom Fox, and Maryanne Grieg-Gran. Defining Global Business Principles: Options and Challenges. Paper Prepared for Insight Investment, Nov. 2004.
Ward, Halina. Legal Issues in Corporate Citizenship. Paper Prepared for the Swedish Partnership for Global
Responsibility, Feb. 2003.
Warren, R. and G. Tweedale. Business Ethics and Business History: Neglected Dimensions in Management Education. British Journal of Management 13 (2002): 20919.
Wartick, Steven L. and Philip L. Cochran. The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Model.
Academy of Management Review 10 (1985): 75869.
Weiser, John and Simon Zadek. Conversations with Disbelievers. New York: The Ford Foundation, 2000.
Werhane, Patricia H. and R. Edward Freeman. Business Ethics: The State of the Art. International
Journal of Management Review 1 (1999): 116.
Werhane, Patricia H. and Tara J. Radin, with Norman E. Bowie. Employment and Employee Rights. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004.
Werre, Marco. Implementing Corporate Responsibility The Chiquita Case. Journal of Business Ethics
44 (2003): 24760.
Windsor, Duane. The Future of Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis 9 (2001): 22556.
Woller, Gary M. Business ethics, society, and Adam Smith: Some observations on the liberal business
ethos. Journal of SocioEconomics 25 (1996): 31132.
Wood, Donna J. Social Issues in Management: Theory and Research in Corporate Social Performance.
Journal of Management 17 (1991): 383406.
Wood, Donna J . Corporate Social Performance Revisited. Academy of Management Review 16 (1991):
691718.
Wood, Donna J. and Raymond E. Jones. Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical research on Corporate Social Performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 3 (1995):
22967.
38 |
The World According to CSR. The Economist 22 January 2005: 1014.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development. A Decade of Action and Learning. Annual
Review, 2004.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Regional Perspectives on Sustainable Livelihoods and
Business. Notes from Regional Dialogues in Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, India and South Africa, 2004.
Yoder, Timothy S. Corporate Responsibility and the Environment. Business & Society Review 106
(2001): 25572.
Young, Neal. Win, Lose or Draw: The Effect of Mergers and Acquisitions on Minnesotas Economy. St.Paul,
MN: Minnesota Trade and Economic Development, Information and Analysis Division, 1 June 2002.
Zadek, Simon. Tomorrows History. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf, 2004.
Zadek, Simon, Niels Hojensgard, and Peter Raynard, eds. Perspectives on the New Economy of Corporate
Citizenship. Copenhagen: The Copenhagen Centre, 2001.
Appendix D: Partial Listing Organizations and Centers

(contact information as of 2004)
ABA Presidential Task Force
on Corporate Responsibility
American Bar Association
321 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60610
312-988-5000
Ashridge Centre for Business & Society

Berkhamsted
Hertfordshire HP4 1NS
United Kingdom
+44 (0)14 4284 1178
www.acbas.com
AccountAbility Institute of Social and

Ethical Accountability
Unit A, 137 Shepherdess Walk
London N1 7RQ United Kingdom
+44 (0)20 7549 0400
www.accountability.org.uk
Aspen Institute
1000 North Third Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
800-525-6618
www.aspeninstitute.org
www.abanet.org/buslaw/corporateresponsibility
African Institute of Corporate

Citizenship
P.O.Box 37357 Birnam Park 2015
Johannesburg, South Africa
+27 11 643 6604
www.aiccafrica.com
Amnesty International
5 Penn Plaza - 14th Floor
New York, NY 10001
212-807-8400
www.amnesty.org
Amnesty International UK
Business Network
London, United Kingdom
+44 (2)20 7814 6200
business@amnesty.org.uk
39 |
Center of Corporate Citizenship (CCC)

Wallace E. Carroll School of
Management
Boston College
55 Lee Road
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467-3942
617-552-4545
www.bc.edu/centers/ccc/
Business for Social Responsibility (BSR)
111 Sutter Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415-984-3200
www.bsr.org
Business in the Community (BITC)
137 Shepherdess Walk
London N1 7RQ
+44 (0)87 0600 2482
www.bitc.org.uk
Business Roundtable
1615 L Street NW Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036
202-872-1260
www.businessroundtable.org
Canadian Business for Social
Responsibility (CBSR)
Vancouver Office Suite 508
1111 West Georgia St
Vancouver, BC V6E 4M3
604-323-2714
www.cbsr.ca
Caux Round Table
401 N. Robert Street, #150
Saint Paul, MN 55101
651-265-2761
www.cauxroundtable.org
Center for Business and Government
Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
79 John F. Kennedy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
617-496-4034
www.ksg.harvard.edu/cbg/CSRI/
Center for Business Ethics
Bentley College
175 Forest Street
Waltham, Massachusetts 02452-4705
781-891-2981
ecampus.bentley.edu/dept/cbe
Center for Ethical Business Cultures (CEBC)
at the University of St. Thomas
Minnesota
1000 LaSalle Avenue, TMH 344
Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005
651-962-4120
http://www.cebcglobal.org
Center on Philanthropy
Indiana University
550 West North Street, Suite 301
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317-274-4200
www.philanthropy.iupui.edu
40 |
Centre of Business Relationships,

Accountability, Sustainability & Society
(BRASS) Cardiff University
54 Park Place
Cardiff
CF10 3AT
United Kingdom
+44 (0)29 2087 6562
www.brass.cf.ac.uk
Centro Internacional para el Desarrollo
Humano (CIDH)
Apartado 14111000
San Jos, Costa Rica
+ 0115062580297
www.cidh.ac.cr
Christian Aid
35 Lower Marsh
Waterloo
London
SE1 7RL
+44 (0)20 7620 4444
www.christian-aid.org.uk
Copenhagen Centre
Holmens Kanal 20
P.O. BOX 2150
DK-1016
Copenhagen K Denmark
+45 35 28 85 80
www.copenhagencentre.org/sw204.asp
Corporate Citizenship Company
Ground Floor South
Cottons Centre
London Bridge City
London
SE1 2QG
+44 (0)20 7940 5610
www.corporate-citizenship.co.uk
CSR Europe
Rue Defacqz, 78-80
Brussels 1060
Belgium
+ 32 2 541 1610
www.csreurope.org
Dow Jones Sustainability

SAM Indexes GmbH
Seefeldstrasse 215
8008 Zurich
Switzerland
+41 1 395 2828
www.sustainability-indexes.com
Ethics Officers Association (EOA)
411 Waverley Oaks Roadm Suite 324
Waltham, MA 02452
781.647.9333
http://www.eoa.org/home.asp
Ethics Resource Center (ERC)
1747 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 400
202.737.2258
www.ethics.org
European BahaI Business Forum (EBBF)
Secretary General European Bahai
Business Forum
35 avenue Jean Jaurs
73000 Chambry, France
+33 (0)4 79 96 22 72
www.ebbf.org
Foundation Center
79 Fifth Avenue/16th Street
New York, New York 10003-3076
800.424.9836
fdncenter.org
Foundation for Business and Society
Established by the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development
www.foundation.no/text/view/1958.html
Foundation for Values Based Business
www.valuesbasedbusiness.org
Friends of the Earth
26-28 Underwood Street
London
N1 7JQ
+44 20 7490 1555
www.foe.co.uk
41 |
FTSE4Good Index
www.ftse.com/ftse4good/index.jsp
Good Corporation
37 St Johns Hill
Battersea
London
SW11 ITT
+44 (0)20 7924 3994
www.goodcorporation.com/en/default.asp
Greenpeace International
Ottho Heldringstraat 5
1066 AZ Amsterdam
The Netherlands
+31 20 5148150
www.greenpeace.org/international_en
Instituto Ethos de Empresas e
Responsabilidade Social
Rua Francisco Leito, 469, Conj. 1407
CEP 05414020, So Paulo/SP, Brazil
(5511) 38972400
www.ethos.org.br
Interfaith Center of Corporate
Responsibility
Room 550
475 Riverside Drive
New York, NY 10115
212.870.2295
www.iccr.org
International Association for Business
and Society (IABS)
www.iabs.net
International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF)
The Prince of Wales International
Business Leaders Forum (IBLF)
15-16 Cornwall Terrace
Regents Park
London
NW1 4QP
+44 (0)20 7467 3600
www.csrforum.com; www.iblf.org
International Institute for Environment

and Development (IIED)
3 Endsleigh Street
London
WC1H ODD
+44 (0) 20 7388-2117
www.iied.org
Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development (OECD)
2, rue Andr Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16
France
+33 1 45 24 82 00
www.oecd.org
International Society of Business,

Economics, and Ethics
Mendoza College of Business #393B
University of Notre
Notre Dame, IN, 46556
574-631-5595
www.isbee.org
Publish What You Pay

c/o Open Society Foundation London 5th Floor
Cambridge House
100 Cambridge Grove
London
W6 0LE
+44 (0)20 7031 0204
www.publishwhatyoupay.org
Markkula Center of Applied Ethics

Santa Clara University
500 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, California 95053
408-554-5319
www.scu.edu/ethics
New Economy Foundation
26, bld.1
Leninskaya Sloboda street
Moscow 115280 Russia
+7 (095) 771-30-31
www.neweco.ru/eng/
Nippon Keidaren
Keidanren Kaikan
1-9-4
Otemachi
Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-8188
81-3-5204-1500
www.keidanren.or.jp/index.html
OECD Watch
SOMO-Centre for Research on
Multinational Corporations
Keizersgracht 132
1015 CW Amsterda,
The Netherlands
(31) 20-639-1291
www.oecdwatch.org
42 |
Society of Business Ethics

School of Business Administration
Loyola University Chicago
820 N. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611
312.915.6994
www.societyforbusinessethics.org
Society of Corporate Compliance
and Ethics
5780 Lincoln Drive, Suite 120
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436
888-277-4977
www.corporatecompliance.org
SustainAbility
Offices in London and Washington
www.sustainability.com
Sustainable Development
Defra, 4E, 9 Millbank,
c/o Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR
+44 (0)20 7238 5811
www.sustainable-development.gov.uk
Swisscontact
Swiss Foundation for Technical
Cooperation
Doeltschiweg 39
P.O. Box CH-8055
Zrich
+41 1 454 17 17
www.swisscontact.org
Transparency International
1023 15th Street NW Suite 300
1-202-589 1616
www.transparency.org
UK Social Investment Forum
Unit 203
Hatton Square Business Centre
16 Baldwins Gardens
London
EC1N7RJ
+44 (0)2074050040
www.uksif.org
United Nations Global Compact
www.unglobalcompact.org
Vincular
Avenida Brasil 2241, Piso 6
Valparaiso, Chile
5632 273880
www.vincular.org
Warwick Business School
The University of Warwick
Coventry
CV4 7AL
+44 (0)24 7652 4306
www.wbs.ac.uk
World Bank Institute
CSR and Sustainable Competitiveness
1818 H Street, NW, MSN j2200
Washington, DC 20433 USA
2024585439
www.worldbank.org/wbi
World Business Council for Sustainable
Development
4, chemin de Conches
1231 Conches-Geneva
Switzerland
+41 (22) 839 3100
www.wbcsd.ch
Appendix E. Supplementary Timeline Materials
he table on the following pages suggests a framework for linking events and organizational developments along a timeline with substantive issues. This kind of framework may be helpful in organizing information and analyzing the evolution of CSR.
The events listed in the lefthand column relate to the sample timeline suggested in Figure 3 (See
above page 32). The categories across the top of the table suggest a range of substantive issues related to
CSR. Additional categories could be added.
We have not attempted at this time to categorize each event or organizational development, but
expanding the events list and conducting such an analysis would provide a basis for describing a timeline
related to each of the issue areas.
43 |
1946
Fortune Poll
1949
Donald K. David
HBR Article
1952
Bowens Social
Responsibilities of
the Businessman
1956
The Foundation
Center
1962
Rachel Carsons
Silent Spring
1964
Civil Rights Act
1968
Paul Erlichs The

Population Bomb
1969
National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969 (NEPA)
1969
Friends of the
Earth
1970
Earth Day
1970
Milton Friedmans
article
1970
The Conference
Board Survey of
Company Contribution
1971
CED report Social Responsibility

of Business
44 |
Centers
Scandal
Globalization
Public Opinion
Standards
NGOs
Compliance
Supply Chain
CSR Management Tools
Corporate Governance
Transparency
Community
Investors
Consumer
Labor and Employment
Event
Sustainability
Year
Environment
CSR-Related Performance Categories
1973
Schumachers
Small is Beautiful
1974
Interfaith Center
of Corporate
Responsibility
1976
Keystone 5% Giving Program
1976
OECD Guidelines
1977
Nestle Boycott
launched
1977
Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act
1977
The Ethics Resource Center
1977
Sullivan Principles
1978
Center for Ethical

Business Cultures
(formally MCCR)
1980
Society for Business Ethics
1982
Center for Business and Government
1982
Business in the
Community (UK)
1984
Bhopal
45 |
Centers
Scandal
Globalization
Public Opinion
Standards
NGOs
Compliance
Supply Chain
Transparency
Community
Investors
Consumer
Event
Sustainability
Year
Environment
1986
Caux Round Table
1986
Markkula Center
for Applied Ethics
1987
SustainAbility
founded
1989
Exxon Valdez spill
1989
Fall of the Berlin

Wall
1991
World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
1991
International Society of Business,

Economics, and
Ethics (ISBEE)
1991
Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston

College
1992
International
Business Leaders
Forum (IBLF)
1992
Business for Social Responsibility
1992
McSpotlight
1993
Forest Stewardship Council
46 |
Centers
Scandal
Globalization
Public Opinion
Standards
NGOs
Compliance
Supply Chain
Transparency
Community
Investors
Consumer
Event
Sustainability
Year
Environment
1993
Transparency
International
1994
Elkingtons Triple
Bottom Line
Reporting
1995
Shell Oil/ Brent

Spar
1995
Pension Act (UK)
1996
Foundation for
Business and
Society
1996
CSR Europe
1997
Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI)
1997
The Copenhagen
Centre
1998
ILOs Declaration
on Fundamental
Principles and
Rights at Work
1998
Ethical Trading
Initiative (ETI)
1999
WTO protest in
Seattle
1999
Fair Labor Association (FLA)
2001
European Commission green

paper on CSR
47 |
Centers
Scandal
Globalization
Public Opinion
Standards
NGOs
Compliance
Supply Chain
Transparency
Community
Investors
Consumer
Event
Sustainability
Year
Environment
2001
Centre of Business Relationships,

Accountability,
Sustainability, and
Society (BRASS)
Cardiff University
2002
Sarbanes Oxley
Act
2002
Publish What You

Pay (PWYP)
2002
ABA Presidential
Task Force on
Corporate Responsibility
48 |
Centers
Scandal
Globalization
Public Opinion
Standards
NGOs
Compliance
Supply Chain
Transparency
Community
Investors
Consumer
Event
Sustainability
Year
Environment
About the Center for Ethical Business Cultures
he Center for Ethical Business Cultures (CEBC) at the University of St. Thomas assists business
leaders in creating ethical and profitable business cultures at the enterprise, community and global
levels. Founded in 1978 by Minnesota business leaders, the Center is one of the nations oldest businessfounded and business-led centers focused on corporate responsibility and business ethics.
In 1992, the Center published The Minnesota Principles: Toward an Ethical Basis for Global Business.
The Minnesota Principles, in language and form, provided the substantial basis for the Caux Round
Table Principles for Business, now available in over a dozen languages and used globally. In 2001, CEBC
published Mergers: Implications for Corporate Philanthropy & the Community. From 20002005, the
Center has been a partner in Building Business Investment in Community (BBIC), a statewide collaboration to strengthen Minnesotas business giving and community involvement tradition. In 2002, BBIC
published the firstever comprehensive statewide study of business giving in Minnesota, The Business of
Giving Back: 2002 Survey of Business Giving and Community Involvement.
> CEBCs primary focus is on its business members and the larger business community. Its
services assist senior executives and other leaders within individual companies as they confront
the many challenges of creating and sustaining ethical cultures, helping assess, embed and
reinforce the values within their organizations.
> Through its many speeches, public presentations, media appearances and publications, the
Center highlights the critical importance of building ethical organizations to individual
companies, trade groups and national associations.
> CEBCs secondary focus is within the academic community. Together with its Academic
Partner, the University of St. Thomas, and with high schools and other colleges and universities,
the Center works with students to underscore the importance of creating ethical culture as a
fundamental business precept.
> Serving as a bridge between the business community and the world of academia, the Center
works with business leaders and with university faculty to foster research that will assist in
creating and sustaining ethical business cultures.
The Center for Ethical Business Cultures is an independent non-profit organization under Section
501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Its Federal Identification Number is 41-1431488.
49 |
For Further Information

Please contact either executive editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster,
Koch Endowed Chair in the Opus College of Business at the
University of St. Thomas or contact project director David
Rodbourne, Vice President of Center for Ethical Business Cultures.
Center for Ethical Business Cultures

1000 LaSalle Avenue, TMH331, Minneapolis, MN 55403
www.cebcglobal.org
Goodpaster: 651.962.4212 | kegoodpaster@stthomas.edu
Rodbourne: 651.962.4122 | dhrodbourne@stthomas.edu
Business Partnering with the University of St. Thomas

CSR-The Shape of A History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CSR-The Shape of A History

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

CSR-The Shape of A History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corporate Social

19 | V. Current (and Recurrent) Debates and Developments

The Influence of Shareholders on

Copyright 2010 by the Center

Preface and Acknowledgements

The views expressed in this CEBC History of Corporate

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

Total Economic Impact

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

II. The Changing Environment of Business

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

Implications for research:

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

>> Public Opinion

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

III. Evolving Concepts and Definitions of CSR

Dempsey and David:

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

Figure 1. CED Model for Corporate Responsibility1

Exercise economic functions with sensitivity

Emerging and still amorphous responsibilities

Figure 2. Archie Carroll Model of

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

IV. Putting Ideas into Action Studies of Business Practices

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

V. Current (and Recurrent) Debates and Developments

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

>> CSR has been Issue-driven

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

VI. Bibliography and Resources Database

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

The benefits of using a database are:

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

VII. Creating a CSR Timeline

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

Appendix A. Definitions of CSR

Fortune Magazine survey (1946)

Davis (1960, p. 70)

Frederick (1960, p. 60)

Davis and Blomstrom (1966, p. 12)

Johnson (1971, p. 50)

Committee for Economic Development (CED) (1971)

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

Manne & Wallich (1972)

Eilbert and Parket (1973)

Eells and Walton (3rd Edition, 1974)

The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Social Responsibility

J. Irwin Miller (1975 in Organizational Dynamics)

Preston and Post (1975)