Corporate social responsibility: The debate revisited

Abstract

Before gaining general acceptance, an idea that jolts individuals out of accustomed-behavioral patterns undergoes a slow evolution. What is interesting in the history of the corporate-social-responsibility doctrine is that, within roughly three decades, it has achieved a status almost coequal with the bottom-line philosophy which, in the past, provided legitimacy to corporate decision making. Nevertheless, debate over corporate responsibilities continues. Two factors explain why: 1) corporate performance is perceived by some as not matching corporate rhetoric and 2) the “battle of definitions” continues. The first factor will be determined within the next five years because the Reagan Administration, by curtailing government activities, places more responsibility on the private sector. The definitional issue of CSR and CSR 2 ( responsibility versus response) is not likely to be resolved soon but the strengths of the “response model” do not equal the strengths of the “responsibility model.” Responsibility is a moral term and response a psychological one: the American people ask their leaders to behave as “virtuous agents.” Moral decision rendered in complex situations—and on behalf of countless others—will lead people to define “correctness” differently, as the “Poletown incident” in Detroit amply illustrates. The search, however, for a new credo and a new character for America business has begun—and will continue.