Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying Commonalities in CSR Definitions: Some Perspectives

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sustainability and Social Responsibility of Accountability Reporting Systems

Abstract

This article analyses different definitions of CSR formulated by a variety of authors and organizations to determine the basic principles thereof; and to identify the differences and similarities between the content of international and South African definitions. An extensive literature review has been conducted to identify a variety of relevant definitions for CSR , including international and South African definitions. These definitions were analysed through qualitative content analysis , in an inductive manner. The main principles of both international and South African definitions were identified, after which these principles were compared in order to draw conclusions regarding the differences and similarities thereof. There are a number of common principles which can be found in the majority of definitions for CSR , even though there are slight differences in nuances. The principles of CSR in South Africa are in line with those of international definitions, but additional principles are identified, all of which can be linked to the country’s history of apartheid and its current attempts to correct the wrongs of the past. The paper suggests that for CSR initiatives to be relevant in different countries, the definition thereof should be formulated taking the unique issues and context of a particular country into account. Therefore, although there are a number of widely accepted principles for CSR which should be honoured, there cannot be one universally accepted definition for CSR . This paper highlights the communalities among seemingly different definitions of CSR , narrowing it down to a number of basic principles. It further illustrates how the CSR agenda in South Africa differs from the international conceptualization thereof and suggests a clearer and more unified approach to conceptualizing and defining CSR within the South African context, to further reflect the unique history and issues of the country. It is suggested that CSR definitions should be contextual and reflect the uniqueness of different countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    To illustrate the lack of consensus regarding a definition of CSR , it must be noted that a period of 30 years went by between the remarks of Carroll and Okoye.

  2. 2.

    A further major challenge in defining CSR is the need for an agreed normative basis which underpins CSR practice (Okoye 2009; Palazzo and Scherer 2007).

  3. 3.

    For an excellent exposition of the evolution of the definition of CSR , see Carroll (1999) and Crane (2008).

  4. 4.

    For a discussion of Bowen’s approach, see Windsor (2001).

  5. 5.

    In 1967, Davis noted that a business is responsible to a variety of stakeholders (or claimant groups), rather than being responsible only to shareholders.

  6. 6.

    As was the case with Keith Davis (see Sect. 14.2.2), Frederick also noted that social responsibility is linked with social power.

  7. 7.

    For a brief discussion of the evolution from CSR 1 to CSR 3, see Moir (2001).

  8. 8.

    The six fundamental precepts of CSR 1 are: power begets responsibility; a voluntary assumption of responsibility is preferable to government intervention and regulation; voluntary social responsibility requires business leaders to acknowledge and accept the legitimate claims, rights and needs of other groups in society; CSR requires a respect for law and the rules of the game that govern marketplace relations; an attitude of “enlightened self-interest” leads socially responsible business firms to take a long-run view of profits; and greater economic, social and political stability will result if all businesses adopt a socially responsible posture (Frederick 1987).

  9. 9.

    For a discussion of CSR 1 see Waddock (2004).

  10. 10.

    For a discussion of the definition of CSR 2, the implications of the approach and its shortcomings, see Frederick (1994).

  11. 11.

    For a summation of Carroll’s definitions of CSR , see Carroll (1999).

  12. 12.

    Carroll remarked that the economic responsibility of a business represents the fundamental social responsibility of a business—a business has the responsibility to make profit (Carroll 1979). This economic responsibility results from the fact that society has “sanctioned” business by allowing it to operate as part of the fulfilment of the social contract that exists between business and society. Society expects businesses to conduct their business within the boundaries of the law—this according to Carroll (1979) represents the legal responsibilities of business. In terms of this approach, ethical responsibilities refer to those expectations that society has of business that exceed legal responsibilities. In the final instance, the discretionary responsibilities of business are those voluntary initiatives that can best be described as philanthropic giving—or what some refer to as “pat-a-poor-person” (Thomas and Nowak 2006).

  13. 13.

    Carroll as quoted in Carroll (1999). Note that in terms of this definition the discretionary responsibilities have been reframed as voluntary or philanthropic responsibilities. The four areas of responsibility were later depicted as pyramidic in structure, with the economic responsibility forming the basis of the pyramid and philanthropic responsibilities forming the top of the pyramid. See Carroll (1991). For a discussion of Carroll’s pyramid of responsibilities, see Kloppers (2012).

  14. 14.

    For a discussion of the Schwartz and Carroll model, see Kloppers (2012).

  15. 15.

    In 2000, the WBCSD defined CSR as “the commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to improve their quality of life” (WBCSD 2002). It is noteworthy that the definition provided in 2000 does not refer to the commitment of business as being a “continuing” one, nor does it refer to the fact that businesses are required to “behave ethically”. Following on Dahlsrud’s classification of dimensions (see Dahlsrud 2008), the definition provided by the WBCSD in 2000 does not include the voluntariness dimension, possibly indicating a move away from the notion that CSR is always based on voluntary actions.

  16. 16.

    From this source, it appears as if the Council equates corporate responsibility (with its three pillars) with sustainable development.

  17. 17.

    Also see (Siegel and Vitialiano 2007) who remark that CSR occurs when companies “engage in activity that appears to advance a social agenda beyond that which is required by law”.

  18. 18.

    This definition encompasses all of the dimensions identified by Dahlsrud (2008). It refers to the environmental , social, economic, stakeholder and voluntariness dimensions.

  19. 19.

    The Commission is of the view that the voluntary approach is preferable to a comprehensive legal framework and regards any additional obligations and administrative requirements as counterproductive (EC 2006), although it agrees that CSR practices are not a substitute for public policy.

  20. 20.

    Lantos (2001) proposed a framework in which he initially identified two different types of CSR —altruistic CSR and strategic CSR (he later added ethical CSR as a third type of CSR (Lantos 2003b) also refer to Lantos (2003a). In terms of altruistic CSR , the motive for the initiative is not an economic one. The business does not expect to receive any benefit from the initiative. A strategic CSR initiative is motivated by the expectation that the initiative would be to the benefit not only of the intended beneficiary but also of the business.

  21. 21.

    In line with Dahlsrud’s CSR dimensions (see Dahlsrud 2008), it appears that the World Bank’s definition does not explicitly include the environmental dimension, nor is any reference made to voluntariness.

  22. 22.

    Activities in this regard also refer to products, services and processes. Although this is one of the most complete definitions of CSR , if the definition is measured against Dahlsrud’s dimensions (see Dahlsrud 2008) it is evident that the dimension of voluntariness is absent. However, this is not necessarily a shortcoming and it is argued that a definition of CSR should make reference to the fact that CSR activities should in the first instance be in compliance with applicable law and consistent with international norms of behaviour.

  23. 23.

    Excluded from this definition are governments acting in their sovereign role as legislators or judicial authorities. The definition of the ISO is a clear indication that the ISO accepts that entities other than businesses such as non-profit organizations also have a social responsibility towards their employees, their families and society at large.

  24. 24.

    ISO (2010) notes that: “Sustainable development is about integrating the goals of a high quality of life, health and prosperity with social justice and maintaining the earth’s capacity to support life in all its diversity. These social, economic and environmental goals are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Sustainable development can be treated as a way of expressing the broader expectations of society as a whole”. For a discussion of CSR and sustainability , see Porter (2008).

  25. 25.

    A stakeholder is defined as an “individual or group that has an interest in any decision or activity of an organization” (ISO 2010).

  26. 26.

    For a discussion of the shareholder-supremacy approach, see Kloppers (2012).

  27. 27.

    For a discussion of the stakeholder approach, see Kloppers (2012).

  28. 28.

    See Sect. 14.2.8 for a discussion of the EC’s definition.

  29. 29.

    This definition includes all of the dimensions identified by Dahlsrud (2008) except the voluntariness dimension.

  30. 30.

    This position is in line with Horrigan’s remark that “definitions of CSR can also be jurisdiction-orientated” (Horrigan 2010).

  31. 31.

    See Kloppers (2012) for a discussion of the benefits of CSR .

  32. 32.

    It is undeniable that in many instances big business has been implicated in and supportive of the legacy of apartheid and consequently these businesses are to some extent being held “responsible” (AICC 2004).

  33. 33.

    This issue will not be addressed in this section.

  34. 34.

    Other characteristics include transparency, independence, accountability and fairness.

  35. 35.

    See Sect. 14.4.2.

  36. 36.

    For a discussion of the ISO’s definition, see Sect. 14.2.12.

  37. 37.

    Also referred to as responsible investment (IoDSA 2009).

  38. 38.

    The BEE legislation and related regulations and Codes of Practice are discussed in more detail in Kloppers (2012).

  39. 39.

    The authors speculate that the move by the legislator away from terms such as CSR or CSI could be an attempt by the legislator to introduce constitutional language to the CSR environment. The reference to socio-economic development is in line with the language used in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Included in the Bill of Rights are various rights which are described as socio-economic rights. However, it should be noted that the authors do not argue that CSR is a socio-economic right, but merely that some socio-economic rights might be realized through CSR.

  40. 40.

    Schedule 1 (South Africa 2007a) (Schedule 1 of the Notice contains a list of definitions used in the Code). “Approved SED contributions” refers to projects focusing on environmental issues or projects targeting infrastructure development, enterprise creation or reconstruction in underdeveloped areas or areas identified by the national integrated sustainable rural development or urban renewal programmes. For a discussion of SED contributions, see Kloppers (2012).

  41. 41.

    For a review of the key provisions of the Financial Sector Charter, see Moyo and Rohan (2006).

  42. 42.

    The paragraph continues to provide a list of possible CSI initiatives. The contents of this list exhibits many similarities with the Draft Code (South Africa 2005) and makes no reference to SED, SED contributions or SED programmes.

  43. 43.

    For a discussion of this term, see Kloppers (2012).

References

  • African Institute of Corporate Citizenship (AICC) (2004) Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in South Africa: implications for a potential standards organisation (ISO) management standard

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee S (2001) Corporate citizenship and indigenous—exploring a new dynamic of organisational-stakeholder relationships. J Corp Citizensh 1:39–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield M, Frynas G (2005) Setting new agendas: critical perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in the developing world. Int Aff 81:499–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen H (1953) Social responsibilities of the businessman

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A (1979) A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad Manag Rev 4:497

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus Horiz 5(34):5–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A (1999) Corporate social responsibility—evolution of a definitional construct. Bus Soc 38:268–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane A (2008) The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility, pp 19–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlsrud A (2008) How is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 14:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis K (1960) Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? Calif Manag Rev 70–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis K (1967) Understanding the puzzle. Bus Horiz 10:45–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis K (1973) The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Acad Manag Rev 16:312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis K, Blomstrom R (1966) Business and its environment

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2007) European Commission’s response to the private sector’s follow-up recommendations of the first EU-AFRICA business forum. http://www.africa-union.org. Accessed 1 Nov 2011

  • European Commission (EC) (2001) Green paper—promoting a European framework for (COM (2001) 366)

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC) (2006) Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs: making Europe a pole of excellence on corporate social responsibility (COM (2006) 136)

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC) (2011) A renewed EU strategy for corporate social responsibility (COM (2011) 681)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fig D (2005) Manufacturing amnesia: corporate social responsibility in South Africa. Int Aff 81:599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fig D (2007) Staking their claims—corporate social and environmental responsibility in South Africa

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick W (1960) The growing concern over business responsibility. Calif Manag Rev 2:60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick W (1987) Theories of corporate social performance. In: Sethi S, Falbe M (eds) Business and society, pp 144–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick W (1994) From CSR1 to CSR2—the maturing of business-and-society thought. Bus Soc 33:150–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grayson D, Hodges A (2004) Corporate social opportunity! 7 steps to make work for your business

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamman R (2003) Mining companies’ role in development: the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of from a business perspective. Dev Sout Afr 20:237–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horrigan B (2010) Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: debates, models and practices across government, law and business

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Directors (IoD) (2002) King report on corporate governance for South Africa

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Directors in South Africa (IoDSA) (2009) King report on Governance for South Africa

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) (2010) Guidance on social responsibility

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) (n.d.) About ISO. http://www.iso.org/iso/about.html. Accessed 2 July 2013

  • Jones T (1980) Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. Calif Manag Rev 22:59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchen T (2003) A brand explanation. J Brand Manag 10:312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppers HJ (2012) Improving land reform through CSR: a legal framework analysis. LLD thesis. North West University

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler P, Lee N (2005) Corporate social responsibility: doing the most good for your company and your cause

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantos G (2001) The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. J Consum Mark 18:595–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lantos G (2003a) Corporate socialism unethically masquerades as “CSR”—the difference between being ethical, altruistic and strategic in business. Strat Dir 19:31–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantos G (2003b) The ethicality of altruistic corporate social responsibility. J Consum Mark 19:205–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams A, Siegel D (2001) Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Acad Manag Rev 26:117

    Google Scholar 

  • Moir L (2001) What do we mean by corporate social responsibility? Corp Gov 1:16–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyo T, Rohan S (2006) Corporate citizenship in the context of the financial services sector: what lessons from the financial sector charter? Dev South Afr 23:289–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullerat R, Brennan D (2011) Corporate social responsibility: the corporate governance of the 21st century

    Google Scholar 

  • New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) (2007) Business declaration on corporate social responsibility

    Google Scholar 

  • New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) (2010) About. http://www.nepad.org/about. Accessed 3 Nov 2011. http://www.ahi.co.za/current/NEPADBusinessDeclaraton.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2011

  • Okoye A (2009) Theorising as an essentially contested concept: is a definition necessary? J Bus Ethics 89:613–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo G, Scherer A (2007) Towards a political conception of corporate responsibility: business and society as seen from a Habermasian perspective. Acad Manag Rev 32:1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter T (2008) Managerial applications of Corporate Social Responsibility and systems thinking for achieving sustainability outcomes. Syst Res Behav Sci 25:398–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer A, Palazzo G (2008) Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz M, Carroll A (2003) A three domain approach. Bus Ethics Q 13:503–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi P (1975) Dimensions of corporate social performance: an analytical framework. Calif Manag Rev 17:58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel D, Vitialiano D (2007) An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility. J Econ Manag Strat 16:773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South Africa (2005) Notice of the draft 2nd phase of the codes of good practice on broad-based black economic empowerment (General notice 2036) Gov Gaz 28351, 20 Dec

    Google Scholar 

  • South Africa (2007a) Codes of good practice on black economic empowerment (General notice 112). Gov Gaz 29617, 9 Feb

    Google Scholar 

  • South Africa (2007b) Financial sector charter on black economic empowerment (General notice 110). Gov Gaz 29610, 9 Feb

    Google Scholar 

  • South African Grantmakers’ Association (SAGA) (2002) The king report 2002: implications for corporate social investment in South Africa

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas G, Nowak M (2006) Corporate social responsibility: a definition

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Marrewijk M (2003) Concepts and definitions of and corporate: between agency and communication. J Bus Ethics 44:95–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Votaw D (1972) Genius became rare: a comment on the doctrine of part 1. Calif Manag Rev 15:25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock S (2004) Parallel universes: companies, academics and the progress of corporate citizenship. Bus Soc Rev 5(109):14–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Wan-Jan W (2006) Defining. J Public Aff 6:176–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windsor D (2001) The future of corporate social responsibility. Int J Organ Anal 9:225–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2003) Public policy for social responsibility. https://www.info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/57434/publicpolicy_econference.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2013

  • World Business Council for Development (WBCSD) (1991) Meeting changing expectations. http://www.wbcsd.org/about.aspx. Accessed 2 July 2013

  • World Business Council for Development (WBCSD) (2002) The WBCSD’s journey

    Google Scholar 

  • World Business Council for Development (WBCSD) (n.d.) About the WBCSD

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus), Potchefstroom, South Africa

    Henk Kloppers & Elbé Kloppers

Authors
  1. Henk Kloppers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elbé Kloppers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henk Kloppers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey

    Kıymet Tunca Çalıyurt

  2. Universiti Teknologi MARA, Kedah, Malaysia

    Roshima Said

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kloppers, H., Kloppers, E. (2018). Identifying Commonalities in CSR Definitions: Some Perspectives. In: Çalıyurt, K., Said, R. (eds) Sustainability and Social Responsibility of Accountability Reporting Systems. Accounting, Finance, Sustainability, Governance & Fraud: Theory and Application. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3212-7_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation