Organizational Social Responsiveness from Csr Perspective
Organizational Social Responsiveness from CSR perspective
Introduction
This paper will first briefly discuss the CSR theory by reviewing its development history. Focus will then be paid on the study of organizational social responsiveness, which includes two basic processes, namely first monitoring external social demands and expectations and then developing internal social mechanisms (Bartol, 2011). To be more precise, the author would like to study the social responsiveness from a CSR perspective. The following part of this research will make two case studies to further explain the theory abovementioned.
1. Definition of CSR
There is no clear definition of CSR. EC defines CSR as the responsibility of enterprises for what impact they can have on society. Since Oliver Sheldon (1924) first proposed the concept CSR, it has been defined as that corporate should not only shoulder economic and legal responsibility, but other social undertakings as well. Based on previous study, Carroll (1979) proposed CSR as a multi-leveled concept. This concept contains four interrelated aspects, i.e. economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. In addition, Carroll put forward a pyramid which can be used to analyze the dimension of CSR. The pyramid begins with economic responsibilities; people create companies to produce goods and services to the public while making profits. All the other three responsibilities rely upon this foundation. The next layer comprises the legal responsibilities of a company. As to the ethical responsibilities, they are practices belonging to what social public expect a company to do what is right and fair, but that are not covered by law. Lastly, companies have a philanthropic responsibility at the top of pyramid (Carroll, 1991).
2. Organisational social responsiveness
Instead of Corporation Social Responsiveness, this term expands the main body of social response, referring to the development of organisational decision
Introduction
This paper will first briefly discuss the CSR theory by reviewing its development history. Focus will then be paid on the study of organizational social responsiveness, which includes two basic processes, namely first monitoring external social demands and expectations and then developing internal social mechanisms (Bartol, 2011). To be more precise, the author would like to study the social responsiveness from a CSR perspective. The following part of this research will make two case studies to further explain the theory abovementioned.
1. Definition of CSR
There is no clear definition of CSR. EC defines CSR as the responsibility of enterprises for what impact they can have on society. Since Oliver Sheldon (1924) first proposed the concept CSR, it has been defined as that corporate should not only shoulder economic and legal responsibility, but other social undertakings as well. Based on previous study, Carroll (1979) proposed CSR as a multi-leveled concept. This concept contains four interrelated aspects, i.e. economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. In addition, Carroll put forward a pyramid which can be used to analyze the dimension of CSR. The pyramid begins with economic responsibilities; people create companies to produce goods and services to the public while making profits. All the other three responsibilities rely upon this foundation. The next layer comprises the legal responsibilities of a company. As to the ethical responsibilities, they are practices belonging to what social public expect a company to do what is right and fair, but that are not covered by law. Lastly, companies have a philanthropic responsibility at the top of pyramid (Carroll, 1991).
2. Organisational social responsiveness
Instead of Corporation Social Responsiveness, this term expands the main body of social response, referring to the development of organisational decision
References: A.B. Carroll. 1991. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. 1991 Business Horizon 34, No. 4, pp. 39-48 Bartol, K. Tein, M., Matthews, G., & Sharma, B. (2011). Management - A Pacific Rim Focus (6th ed.) Mc Graw-Hill. Sydney. pp108-149. Cristina, C. Mercedes, G. Rosemarie, H. Kim, N. Lana, O. Four Case Studies on Corporate Social Responsibility: Do Conflicts Affect a Company’s Corporate Social Responsibility Policy? http://www.utrechtlawreview.org.Vol,8. Nov, 2012 .URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-112903. Hu, J. Jin, W. Dong, D. (2013).Research on Corporate Social Responsiveness Based on Ecological Events: A Case Study of Penglai 19-3Field Incident in Bohai Bay. Ecological Economy. 2013(1). pp155-159. Wartrick, L S. Cochran, L P. 1985. The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Model. Academy of Management Review. 1985, Vol, 10, No. 4, pp. 758-769. ‘Steve Jobs says Foxconn in China “not a sweatshop” after worker deaths’, The Guardian, 2 June 2010,