Criticism on Carroll's Model

Presented here is some criticism on Carroll's model of CSR.

1. Criticism on Carroll’s Model Muhammad Taimur Mustafa Shams Ud din Nighat Saif

2. Carroll’s Model tries to explain; The basic definition of Social Responsibility Those issues for which Social Responsibility exists The philosophy of response Thus Carroll’s model comprises of; Social Responsibility Social Issues Social Responsiveness Three-dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance

3. “ The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time” Corporate Social Responsibility

4. Carroll’s Model identifies issues or areas to which social responsibility is directed Consumerism, Environment, Discrimination, Product safety, occupational safety and shareholders Changes in social issues with respect to time Changes in social issues with respect to industry Social Issues

5. The capacity of a corporation to respond to social pressure The strategy behind business response to social responsibility and social issues Relates with the degree and kind of managerial actions Includes Reaction, Defense, Accommodation and Proaction . Social Responsiveness

6. The Corporate Social Performance Model

7. The CSP Model is unique as; It integrates Economic and Public responsibilities into Social responsibility It reflects the interaction among responsibility, responsiveness and social issues However, Carroll’s work fails to provide the Model’s dynamic evolution And fails to consider the process of analysis, debate and modifications. The Evolution of Corporate Social Performance Model Steven Wartick & Philip Cochran

8. Three basic challenges; Economic Responsibility Public Responsibility Social Responsiveness Challenges to Social Responsibility

9. The Criticism: Economic responsibility is the firm’s single responsibility Corporations cannot be Moral Agents The Response: Corporations are no more just “Earning machines” They are politically involved and are required to be socially active Economic Responsibility

10. The Criticism: Corporations have two involvements, Economic task and its consequential effects Public Responsibility recognizes both of them Social Responsibility is a vague, ambiguous and ill-defined concept Social Responsibility should be replaced by Public Responsibility Public Responsibility

11. The Response: Public Responsibility is not different than Social Responsibility In the broader context “ widely shared and acknowledged principles of society or public opinion, emerging issues, formal law and enforcement practices” it is same as social responsibility In the narrower view its too restrictive in the scope of CSR

12. The Criticism: Social Responsibility is operationally dysfunctional Social Responsibility lacks to determine what’s to be done, how much to be done. It used to be social obligation, then social responsibility and now evolved into social responsiveness Social responsiveness (capacity of corporations to respond to social issues) is more tangible and achievable Thus Social responsiveness should substitute social responsibility Social Responsiveness

13. The Response: Social Responsiveness is a valid concept but not a substitute for social responsibility. Social Responsibility determines business ethics while social responsiveness deemphasizes it Social responsiveness is a reactionary step What about ethical problems and social irresponsibility without awareness, pressure and outcry? Social responsibility as a guide for corporation’s activities

14. Corporate Social Performance accepts the importance of economic responsibility McGuire (1963), Carroll (1979), Strand (1983), Zenisek (1979), Ducker (1984) CSP model includes Public Responsibility within social responsibility Carroll (1979), Strand (1983) CSP model considers both social responsibility and social responsiveness as valid Carroll argues that both play different roles in CSP

15. Another dimension to Carroll’s model It reduces surprises due to unpredictable and dynamic business environment It includes a) issue identification b) issue analysis and c) response development The final dimension to CSP An extension of social responsiveness A method for operationalizing social responsiveness Social Issues Management

16. Corporate Social Performance Model

17. Corporate social performance revisited Donna j. wood Defining corporate social performance : Sethi (1979) offered categories of CSP not definition . Concise definition by Carroll (1979) in favor of a three dimensional model . Ullmann (1985) showed need for a theory of CSP . Wartick and Cochran (1985) based on Carroll work defined CSP model as “the underlying interaction among the principles of social of social responsibility, the process of social responsiveness and the policies developed to address social issues”.

18. Wartick and Cochran’s Model intended to account Motivating principles Behavioral processes Observable outcomes A business organization's configuration of principles of social responsibility, processes of social responsiveness, and policies, programs and observable outcomes as they relate to the firm’s social relationships .

19. Principles of Corporate Social Responsibility Institutional Principle: Legitimacy Organizational principles: Public responsibility Individual Principle: Managerial Discretion. Wartick and Cochran argued that Carroll's four categories represented principles of social responsibility; the first element of CSP.

20. Contribution of The Principles to CSP Principle of legitimacy: society has right to establish and enforce a balance of power among its institutions and to define legitimate functions . Principle of public responsibility: it is organization’s responsibility to act affirmatively for social well being . Principles of managerial behavior: individual’s right and responsibility to decide and act are affirmed within bounds of economic, legal and ethical constraints.

21. Processes of Corporate Social responsiveness Fredrick “the capacity of corporations to respond to social pressures” Sethi (1979) Responsiveness could be seen as a replacement of CSR Carroll (1979) Responsiveness is conceptually inadequate to replace CSR . Watrick and Cochran (1985) within CSP model, responsiveness compliments but does not replace responsibility . Used Carroll’s reactive, defensive, accommodative and proactive to represent the process of social responsiveness.

22. Environmental Assessment: Stakeholder Management Issues Management The three facets of responsiveness environmental assessment (Context), stakeholders management (actors) and issues management (interests) are inter locked.

23. Outcomes: Social Impacts, Programs and Policies Social Impacts of Corporate behavior: Corporate Social programs and Policy Policies developed by companies This third part of CSP model is actually observable and where real performance exists

24. Conclusion The reformulation of CSP model in this article gives following conceptual advances : Articulation of principles of CSR at institutional, organizational and individual level . Identification of specific responsive processes i.e. environmental assessment, stakeholder management and issues management . Incorporating social impact, policies and programs as collective outcomes.

25. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility : Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders, Archie B. Carroll

26. Criticism on Previous view Four aspects of CSR are linked Corporate stakeholders: view changed from what are responsibilities to whom organizations are responsible Presented idea of CSR pyramid

27. Stakeholders Stakeholders are prioritized Criteria 1) Legitimacy 2)power

28. Pyramid Philanthropic Responsibilities Be a good corporate citizen. Ethical Responsibilities Be ethical. Legal Responsibilities Obey the law. Economic Responsibilities Be profitable.

29. Moral management of stakeholders IMMORAL MANAGEMENT: decisions suggest an active opposition to what is deemed right or ethical. AMORAL MANAGEMENT: lack ethical perception or awareness MORAL MANAGEMENT:

30. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY : A THREE-DOMAIN APPROACH MarkS . Schwartz Archie B . Carroll

31. Issues or limitations of Carroll's model N ew alternative model, the "Three-Domain Model of CSR“

32. Issues or limitations of Carroll's model Use of a Pyramid Framework Use of a Separate Philanthropic Category Incomplete Development of Economic, Legal, and Ethical Domains

33. The Three-Domain Model of CSR Economic Domain Legal Domain Ethical Domain

34. Thank You!!!