Abstract
The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been controversially discussed for over 50 years. Consequently, a wide variety of definitions and understandings of CSR have been developed throughout the decades. That has made it increasingly hard, or not to say impossible, to agree on a common perception of CSR. Concerning the various notions of CSR, four core controversies can be identified which revolve around certain elements of CSR: First of all, there is the underlying question if CSR is the business of business or if it is none of its business as Friedman has famously argued. Second, should CSR contain legal obligations or is it a purely voluntary concept and, thus, ethical in nature? Strongly connected to that is the third controversy on whether CSR should be self-serving or if it has to be purely altruistic. Finally, there is widespread disagreement on the scope of CSR. Does it have a local, community-oriented focus or should it address concerns of a wider geographical scope? These controversies are analyzed and discussed here with the aim of developing a definition of CSR that does not remain confined to the academic world.
Highlights
While the idea that businesses should voluntarily contribute to the well-being of the communities where they operate dates back far into the 19th century, the scientific discussion of that phenomenon began in the 1930s
As long as definitions and concepts of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) remain mostly abstract and confined to the academic discussion, they are hardly useful in the long run and do not contribute to what all of them demand: the obligation of corporations to take on social responsibilities
In 2001, David Birch noted that “corporate citizenship is not about philanthropy, corporate generosity, business community partnerships, executive leasing to community organizations, cause-related marketing, good causes and so on it is about a changing business ethos” [17]
Summary
While the idea that businesses should voluntarily contribute to the well-being of the communities where they operate dates back far into the 19th century, the scientific discussion of that phenomenon began in the 1930s. With the increasing usage and an ever growing number of publications, the meaning of the term has become increasingly blurred In this context, it deserves mentioning that already in 1975 the Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility remarked: “It seems that everyone has his/her own definitions for terms like [...] Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Affairs, Community Relations, Urban Affairs and Corporate Responsibility” [6]. Towards a More Business-Oriented Definition of Corporate Social Responsibility: Discussing the Core Controversies of a Well-Established Concept even theology – have become increasingly interested in CSR. The central controversies on the meaning of CSR will be isolated and discussed with regard to what they imply for businesses This serves as a basis for the development of a definition of CSR that is applicable for businesses. As long as definitions and concepts of CSR remain mostly abstract and confined to the academic discussion, they are hardly useful in the long run and do not contribute to what all of them demand: the obligation of corporations to take on social responsibilities
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
