CSR(rephrase):

Over the last six decades, scholars are refocussing on their concept of CSR, to
define CSR in a manner that is accepted universally.But all of them failed to do
so.Although Carrolls attempt can be said to be the best in them.Carroll defined
CSR as, the social responsibility covers economic, ethical, legal and discretionary
expectation, that a society has from an organisation at a given point of time.He said
that the four components( ethical,legal,economic,discretionary) of definition,
covers all the expectations that a society have from an organization.
Economic component is the first component and it refers to the traditional purpose
of business that is produce products and services and sell them to gain profit.And it
can benefit society through increase in employment, offer fair/good salaries to
workers,promote technology and processes, explore new resources and also give
high return on investment to stakeholders.And because business is considered the
economic unit, that is why all other subsequent responsibilities are attached to it
and are assumed to be businesss responsibilities.
Second is that the business should try to achieve its economic goals in the potrait
of law.The state or governance is, to make boundaries for business, that they can
operate between and grab their goals,Law gives a difference between acceptable
and rejectable deeds or actions and give businesses a range which is tolerable.And
the actions between laws and regulations can help business to build a good relation
with stakeholders. But,sometimes firms see law as barrier between them and goals.
And there is an oppurtunity for proactive business and they can do better before
law is applied to them, as all of them cant be seen by law at one time.
Third component cover the moral expectations, that are defined by society they are
working in . Moral expectations are social beliefs, relegious thoughts, values and
norms derived from society.These are not always codified by law but should be
followed as it suggests the right and wrong in society.Ethics in general includes,
respect for local community and avoidance from having social and environmental
harm, but the not specified definition of ethics, make it difficult for the firm that
what to do and what to not.

The fourth component, that is discretionary resoponsibility focus on voluntary

actions that a business do to to show that business and society are interwined.Discretionary responsibilities includes charity, work for educational
development, and day care facilities for employees,amon others.Due to the broad
scope of this responsibility, it may be difficult for firms to perform it and it can be
a barrier between business and its goals/profit.Carroll in his work said that these
responsibilities are relative to eachother and should be performed according to
what is required to society.These levels are not additive,cumulative or mutually
exclusive.\
In 1991,Carroll presented his diagram or model in a pyramid shape, which shows
that which responsibility is broad/narrow and also shows that which of these
esponsibilities is mandatory, expected or desired.In this pyramid,Economic and
legal responsibility was shown as mandatory, whereas ethical was expected and
phintropic as desired.Legal and economic was shown as narrow and ehical and
philanthropic as broad social responsibilities.
Economic responsibility is put at the bottom of the pyramid or as the foundation, as
business cannot survive for long without profit.Therefore, firms should see it as
their primary goal and responsibility.The pyramid secondally suggest legality, that
the firms operations should be done in legal region.These two responsibilities can
be referred as core components and it reinforce Friedmens idea that a firm shoul
gain profit within the rules of the game.Ethical come as third and philanthropic as
fourth. While Carroll admitted that these four are not mutually exclusive,so, he
presented this pyramid, that managers can know that which to perform at what
time and with which intensity.
Carroll recently, related his 1991 work to MNCs, As, MNCs raised the question
that global business ethics are not clearly understandable and managers has
difficulties to follow it. He said that in future the social responsibility for
companies will go from indiviual to global. And globally these responsibilities will
vary from country to country, for, MNCs. As a result in 2004, Carroll represented
his 1991 model with some addition.
Like 1991 model, the placement of responsibilities was economic, legal, ethical,
philanthropic (from below). He argued that profit/economic benefit is fundamental

for every business, performing any where. While the demand or expectation vary
from country to country. In legal, he added that legal systems vary in each region,
So, MNCs should understand each countrys legal system and act accordingly. For
ethical responsibility Carroll urged that it is very much important for MNCs to
identify the home and host countrys ethical expectations and perform it, to make
its reputation. It is vital for MNCs to care about global norms, values and beliefs,
So that they can satisfy home and host both. At the top, philanthropic
responsibilities is placed. These are the responsibilities which are not directed by
law nor expected ethically. Carroll defended this pyramid through the argument
that, this is only a framework which suggests that what responsibilities may fall on
MNCs or its managers. So it is important that it should cover all the
responsibilities(economic, legal, ethical, philanthropic).
There is no doubt that Carrolls work is very much influencial in CSR literature but
criticisms were done on his work, for making economic responsibility
fundamental, very much relation between components etc. Windsor(2001) argued
that Carroll has emphasised more on economic and legal component, which
suggests that ethical and philanthropic cant be achieved without economic and
legal. Kang and Wood(1995) argued that Carrolls work is based on a weak
assumption, that moral component cant be achieved without meeting economic. In
other words, if business fails, it may use its fgailure to justify its compromise on
moral responsibility. Therefore, emphasis on economic component as fundamental,
can limit moral responsibilities to work or acted upon.
One of the problems is that these four components are connected to eachother, and
these are difficult to interpret and apply. E-g: Discretionary responsibilities can be
negatively correalted with economic. Even if we say that they are not correlated,
even then firms will only focus on economic responsibility and the other
components will be just used as ways to achieve economic goals.