See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229578267

Defining corporate social responsibility

Article  in  Journal of Public Affairs · August 2006

DOI: 10.1002/pa.227

CITATIONS READS

65 14,550

1 author:

Wan Saiful Wan Jan

ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute
24 PUBLICATIONS   70 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Newspaper Articles View project

The new dynamics of Malay politics in Malaysia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wan Saiful Wan Jan on 06 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Public Affairs
J. Publ. Aff. 6: 176–184 (2006)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pa.227

Defining corporate social

responsibilityy
Wan Saiful Wan-Jan*
Social Enterprise London, London, UK

* This paper aims to provide a working definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR). It
begins by describing how the lack of a widely agreed definition contributed to
misunderstandings and cynicism towards the concept itself and argued that hence the
need for a working definition. The paper then goes on to divide current literature on CSR,
and current business practices, into two main categories depending on the way CSR
is perceived—as an ethical position or as a business strategy. A brief overview on how CSR is
practised in the real business world is also presented. The paper describes how practitioners
seem to be practising CSR despite the lack of a universally agreed definition. Subsequently,
based on the ongoing academic debates on CSR and on examples of what is happening in
the real business world, the paper concludes with a proposed definition that reconciles
ongoing academic debates with practice.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction The need for a working definition

This paper aims to provide a working definition
of corporate social responsibility (CSR). It begins
by describing how the lack of a widely agreed
definition contributed to misunderstandings
and cynicism towards the concept itself and argued
that hence the need for a working definition.
The paper divides current literature and current
business practices into two main categories
depending on the way CSR is perceived—as an
ethical position or as a business strategy—and
then describes how CSR is practised in the real
world. Since practitioners seem to be practising
CSR despite the lack of a universally agreed
definition, the paper concludes with a proposed
definition that reconciles ongoing academic
debates with practice.
—————
*Correspondence to: Wan Saiful Wan-Jan, Social Enter-
prise London, Downstream Building, 1 London Bridge,
London SE1 9BG, UK. E-mail: wansaiful@gmail.com
y
The author is greatly indebted to the two reviewers of
this paper.
Although CSR has only recently risen to promi-
nence as a serious discipline in management,
contributing to society is not a totally new
concept for firms. In late 1770s, Adam Smith
introduced the expression ‘the invisible hand’ to
demonstrate how capitalists inadvertently
brought about domestic economic prosperity
even though their real intentions were the
pursuit of self-interest. Smith argued that the
metaphorical ‘hand’ helps produce benefits to
society even when the capitalists did not plan for
such social benefits. The invisible hand produces
outcomes that may not be consciously planned.
To Smith, social welfare is a by-product of
capitalists’ activities. The impact of corporate
activities on society has been thence debated by
practitioners and researchers right up to this day.
Despite the many debates and discussions on
the social responsibility of firms, there remains
a big question of what CSR actually is. As
Kitchin (2002) stated, ‘one moment (CSR)

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Public Affairs, August–November 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
Corporate Social Responsibility
seems to mean the engagement of non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), the next
it is all about charitable donations, and
5 minutes later it seems to mean the ethical
treatment of employees. One minute the
NGOs are calling the shots, the next the
accountants are in on the act selling
reputation assurance’. Different authors
seem to have different explanations as to
what CSR is. Some argued that CSR is an
excellent tool to market the firm and should
therefore be led by marketers (Lantos, 2001) or
be used to enhance the company’s brand
(Lewis, 2003). Others argued that firms should
be socially responsible because that is the right
way to behave (Novak, 1996; Trevino and
Nelson, 1999).
It is not surprising that authors present
contradicting pictures of what is CSR. After
all, even if the same term—CSR—is used, it
does not necessarily mean that the discussion
is about the same concept. As an example,
based on his review of nine empirical studies,
Frooman (1994) concluded that the stock
market penalizes firms’ socially irresponsible
behaviour. Five of these nine studies looked at
the market’s reaction following product
recalls. Frooman assumed that product recall
is a sign of social irresponsibility and in
each case, the share-prices dropped after
the recall. But it can also be argued that
recalling products is an evidence of a socially
responsible behaviour, because socially irre-
sponsible firms will not recall their products.
If this is the case, then Frooman’s study
actually proved that a socially responsible
action (i.e. product recall) are punished by the
market! Another case reviewed by Frooman
was market reaction towards an airplane
crash. But how can an airplane crash become
a sign of corporate irresponsibility? It may
be an accident, or carelessness of the pilot
or mechanical failure. But surely it is not
corporate irresponsibility. Frooman has
clearly missed the fact that CSR is exemplified
by a company’s reaction to an event or its
actions in general, not by how the market
react to actions taken by the company.
Arguably, the lack of a consensus on what is
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
177
CSR has led Frooman to measure the wrong
indicators of social responsibility.
The confusion about what CSR really is has
also contributed to cynicisms towards CSR
itself. There were claims that some elements
of CSR are actually socialism in disguise
(Lantos, 2003). Some neoclassical economists
claim that CSR is a dangerous concept that
threatens the foundations of market economy
(Friedman, 1970; Henderson, 2001, 2004). In
his 2004 book, Henderson repeatedly stressed
that the primary role of business in the
modern world is as an agent of economic
progress and to pursue profitability. To
Henderson, CSR is a ‘radically new model of
corporate behaviour’ that seeks to change the
way the market operates by forcing corpora-
tions to give unnecessary attention to public
welfare.
It is difficult to ascertain why Henderson is so
vehemently opposed to CSR other than
because (1) he sees the increased attention to
public welfare will detract companies from the
pursuit of profitability; or (2) he opposes the
calls for CSR legislations. The former view, to
this author, is very restricted as it ignores the
fact that CSR can be a vital strategy to enhance
profitability (e.g. the increased attention to
societal needs may become a competitive
advantage which increases customer loyalty
and ultimately profitability). On the other hand,
this author accepts that the market does not
need CSR legislations as the market is better
able to look after itself. However, making a
blanket opposition to CSR as a whole just
because one is against CSR legislation is surely a
case of mistaken and hasty generalization. The
reality is, the lack of a widely accepted
definition has contributed to needless cynicism
towards the concept.
Clearly there is a need for CSR to be defined
properly before embarking in a deeper study
about this fascinating concept—a concept that
has sparked wide-ranging debates among some
of the most prominent management gurus of
our time. Absence of a clear working definition
would only mean that studies on CSR could be
based on weak or false understanding of the
topic.
Journal of Public Affairs, August–November 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
178
CSR as an ethical stance
Mintzberg (1983) stated that CSR can be
practised or can appear in four forms. The
purest form is when CSR is practised for its own
sake. The firm expects nothing back from their
CSR activities and they become socially respon-
sible because ‘that is the noble way for
corporations to behave’. A second, less pure,
form of CSR is when it is undertaken for
‘enlightened self-interest’ in which case firms
undertake CSR with the belief that CSR pays.
The ‘pay’ could be tangible or intangible but in
either case, the payback is expected. This is
related to Mintzberg’s third form of CSR in
which CSR is seen as a sound investment.
According to the ‘sound investment theory’
the stock market reacts to firms’ actions
and socially responsible behaviours will be
rewarded by the market. The fourth form of
CSR, which is also related to enlightened self-
interest, is CSR practised in order to avoid
interference from external political influences.
In this case, firms become socially responsible
in order to prevent the authorities forcing them
to be so via legislation.
Apart from the first, pure form of CSR,
Mintzberg’s other forms see CSR not as an ethical
stance. Mintzberg argued that CSR can only
survive, and should be practised, in its purest and
most proper form—as an ethical position with-
out any expectation of paybacks. He attacked the
glorification of self-interest which he sees as
bringing society back to ‘an earlier and darker
ages’ as it raises greed to ‘some sort of high
calling’ (2002, p 67). To Mintzberg, CSR means
firms undertaking some actions to serve society
beyond selfishness and greed.
Moore (2003) went a step further by saying
that the use of CSR in the quest of enhancing
profitability is actually putting virtue at the
service of avarice. He argued that there is a
tension between social and economic endea-
vours and by becoming socially responsible,
firms are actually working to ease this tension.
Moore calls for the creation of a properly
socially responsible firm. He dubs this ‘the
virtuous firm’ which ‘pursues the external
goods [e.g. profits] in so far, and only in so
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Wan Saiful Wan-Jan
far, as they are necessary to sustain and support
the development of excellence in the [busi-
ness] practice’ (p 51, explanation added).
Moore claimed that if CSR is to be properly
applied in business practices, then it must not
be at the service of greater profitability. To do
so would be unethical.
In the same light as Moore and Mintzberg,
Goyder (2003) articulated his concern that
many firms are taking CSR as mere compliance
with expectations. According to Goyder, ‘com-
pliance CSR’ will only make firms tell stake-
holders what they want to hear so that the firm
is seen as fitting into society’s template. This is
opposite to real CSR, or what Goyder calls
‘conviction CSR’ in which firms truly believe in
a set of purpose and values and have convic-
tions to act on them. Firms that subscribe to
‘conviction CSR’ will ensure that they have
positive impacts on ‘people, the natural world,
and the planet’ (p 4). All these should occur in
addition to compliance with the law and
fulfilling shareholders expectations.
In reviewing the works of the French
philosopher Jacques Derrida—once dubbed
as the world’s greatest philosopher (Weitzman,
2004),—Jones (2003) argued that from the
ethics perspective, it is problematic for CSR to
be exercised with the aim of obtaining calcu-
lative advantage or strategic competitive edge.
If being socially responsible means ‘giving
back’ to society, then as soon as a firm starts
to calculate the returns from being socially
responsible, or as soon as a firm starts to
strategize being ethical, that firm is actually not
committing the act of ‘giving’. ‘Giving, to be
giving, must exceed or interrupt the circle of
economy’ (p 230) and must not be done with
the expectation of being rewarded for it. Thus,
if Jones’ arguments were to be followed, in
order to be socially responsible firms must see
CSR as an ethical stance, not as a tool for
strategic advantage.
However, contrary to Moore’s (2003) argu-
ments as described above, Jones does not
believe that it is unethical for a firm to act out
of self-interest. The ethicality of an action must
be perceived in terms of relations with an
external party. If the consideration is about
Journal of Public Affairs, August–November 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
Corporate Social Responsibility
one’s own self, then the deliberations fall
outside the realm of ethics. The implication is,
according to Jones, corporations who act
socially responsibly out of self-interest are not
unethically using CSR as strategy. They are
simply working outside the realm of ethics.
CSR as business strategy
Although some authors have argued that firms
should be socially responsible without expect-
ing to be rewarded, others argued that it is
wrong for firms to do anything without the
intention of reaping benefits from their actions.
Such ideas usually have their origin in the
agency theory which states that managers
are agents of the stockholders and should there-
fore give priority to serving them by maximizing
financial gains. Managers must seek to max-
imize shareholders returns and they should not
engage in any acts that may lead to its
reduction. In its simplest form, they argue that
managers should do whatever is legal in order
to maximize shareholder value. It is well known
that on the extreme end of agency theory,
authors like Friedman (1970) and Henderson
(2001, 2004) have argued that CSR is a
dangerous concept as it threatens the basic
principles of market economy. However, many
others from the same school of thought believe
that CSR can become a very useful tool to
maximize shareholders value.
Lantos (2001) divided CSR into ethical CSR,
altruistic CSR and strategic CSR. Ethical CSR is
the demand for firms to be morally responsible
to prevent injuries and harm that could result
from their activities. This type of CSR is
expected of all firms and must be fulfilled as
the very minimum. Altruistic CSR is ‘genuine
optional caring, even at possible personal or
organizational sacrifice’ (p 608). In another
article, Lantos (2002, p 207) stated that
strategic CSR is when a firm undertakes certain
‘caring corporate community service activities
that accomplish strategic business goals.’
In both his 2001 and 2003 articles, Lantos
used various ethics framework to vigorously
argue that altruistic CSR is unethical and
therefore should not be practised by public
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
179
firms,1 ethical CSR is the very minimum while
strategic CSR is good for business and society.
Lantos also added that altruistic CSR, although
sometimes expected because of the perceived
‘social contract’ between a firm and society, is
relatively rare because it lies outside the scope
of a firm’s proper activities (2001, p 605).
Schwartz and Carroll (2003) supported this
view. Thus, according to Lantos, CSR should be
focused on two aspects:
(1) preventing injuries and harm that could
result from business activities;
(2) accomplishing strategic business goals.
Lantos’s ideas were developed from Carroll’s
(1979) Social Responsibility Categories, or
sometimes labelled Carroll’s ‘Four Faces’ of
Social Responsibility. In this model, Carroll
stated that ‘for a definition of social responsi-
bility to fully address the entire range of
obligations business has to society, it must
embody the economic, legal, ethical and
discretionary categories of business perfor-
mance’ (p 499—emphasis in original). Eco-
nomic responsibility—the category that
Carroll says is the ‘first and foremost social
responsibility of business’—is the responsibil-
ity of firms to sell goods at a profit. Legal
responsibility is the obligation of firms to abide
by the rules of law. Carroll’s definition of ethical
responsibility is rather hazy as he says that it
simply means ‘that society has expectations of
business over and above legal requirements’.
The ‘discretionary’ element is what Lantos used
to develop his concept of altruistic CSR and it
covers activities like philanthropic contribu-
tions and other non-profit generating acts.
Carroll improved his Social Responsibility
Categories model in 1991 when he proposed
the Pyramid of CSR (see Figure 1). Both the
Social Responsibility Categories and the Pyr-
amid of CSR emphasize that economic aims are
indeed a major part of CSR. Firms should not
pursue the discretionary (called ‘philanthropic’
————
1
—
It should be noted that Lantos only argued against
altruistic CSR in public firms. He clearly stated that
altruistic CSR is appropriate and commendable for private
firms.
Journal of Public Affairs, August–November 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
180
Figure 1. Carroll’s pyramid of corporate social respon-
sibility.
in the pyramid model) element of CSR if the
other three elements are not fulfilled. In other
words, according to Carroll, a holistic under-
standing of CSR will encourage firms to devise a
strategy to enhance overall business perfor-
mance, with discretionary or altruistic CSR
being an option to be considered only once the
economic, legal and ethical responsibilities
have been fulfilled.
Schwartz and Carroll (2003) built upon
the Social Responsibility Categories and the
Pyramid of CSR models to describe CSR as
actually being composed of three domains—
economic, ethical and legal. They overlap with
each other and can best be represented as
Figure 2. In this model, the philanthropic or
Figure 2. Three-domain model of CSR (Schwartz &
Carroll, 2003).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Wan Saiful Wan-Jan
discretionary element of the two previous
models disappears as the authors believe that
if an act is supererogatory, then it cannot be
called a responsibility (p 506). Additionally, the
authors explained that many supererogatory
acts in business are undertaken for economic or
ethical motives (i.e. strategically), thus making
it more accurate to depict CSR as covering only
three domains. Schwartz and Carroll argued
that the best business strategy is to focus on the
part of the diagram where all three domains
overlap or where the economic and ethical
domains overlap as long as the firm passively
comply with the law. Both would bring the
most benefits to the business.
CSR has also been described as a tool to build
good corporate reputation. Lewis (2003) found
that public perception on the role of compa-
nies’ in society has changed significantly. In late
1970s, two-to-one of the British public agreed
that the profits generated by large companies
make things better for their customers. In early
2000s, two-to-one disagree. At the same time,
80% of the public believes that large companies
have a moral duty to society. But 61% believes
that companies do not really care about the
environment and social responsibility. The
dissonance between what the public expects
firms to do and what they think the firms are
actually doing is worrying. But Lewis argued
that companies have a new basis to regain
public trust—through exercising their CSR.
Lewis believes that CSR can become a compe-
titive edge/core competence for those compa-
nies who can exploit it properly. Porter too
echoed the same opinion (Porter, 2003) when
he stated that ‘today’s companies ought to
invest in CSR as part of their business strategy to
become more competitive’.
CSR in the real business
world—serving stakeholders
There is a strong connection between both the
perspectives—CSR as an ethical stance and as
business strategy—discussed above. Regard-
less of whether CSR is seen as an ethical stance
or as business strategy, the way stakeholders
are treated takes centre stage. When CSR is
Journal of Public Affairs, August–November 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
Corporate Social Responsibility
seen as an ethical stance, the company treat
stakeholders ethically due to the belief that,
that is, the proper way to behave. When CSR is
seen business strategy, again, stakeholders are
treated ethically for, by doing so, managers
believe their businesses will prosper.
It is indeed possible to conceive CSR as an
undertaking that allows corporations to serve
stakeholders without jeopardizing shareholders.
The concept of stakeholders was discussed in
detail by Freeman (1984) who defined stake-
holder as ‘any individual or groups who can
affect, or is affected by, the achievement of the
firm’s objectives’. Stakeholder theory does not
accept that shareholders must always be given
primacy. A firm’s activities affect many other
constituents including the employees, the
environment and the society. Thus, according
to stakeholder theory, a firm has a responsibility
to society, and constituents of society, just as
much as it has responsibility to its shareholders.
But it is also important to point out that
stakeholder theory does not advocate abandon-
ing shareholders. Instead, shareholders are one
important stakeholder group that companies
must serve.
Various studies have used the serving of
specific stakeholder group or groups as a proxy
to describe socially responsible behaviour. Some
studies gave more emphasis on certain stake-
holder or certain groups of stakeholders. This is
not because they believe that a particular
stakeholder is more important than others.
Rather, choosing a limited number of stake-
holders makes the study more feasible. Examples
of these include those who describe CSR as:
(1) looking after the environment (Bragdon &
Marlin, 1972; Spicer, 1978; McGuire et al,
1988; Brammer & Millington, 2003);
(2) investing in the community (Moir, 2001;
Brammer & Millington, 2003; Goyder,
2003; Hopkins, 2003; Lewis, 2003);
(3) making charitable contributions (Brammer
& Millington, 2003; CSR Europe; BSR);
(4) good employee relations (Moir, 2001;
Goyder, 2003; WBCSD; Lewis, 2003);
(5) maintaining/increasing profitability (Goyder,
2003; Hopkins, 2003; CSR Europe; BSR).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
181
The list above is not exhaustive but aims only
to indicate that when CSR is defined as serving
the needs of stakeholders, it will include a wide
variety of actions that can be embarked upon by
corporations.
Hopkins (2003, p 10) is quite specific about
the relationship between CSR and stakeholder
management when he defined CSR as ‘treating
the stakeholders of the firm ethically or in a
responsible manner’. Similarly, Smith (2003)
stated that CSR is ‘obligations of the firm to
society, or more specifically, the firm’s stake-
holders—those affected by corporate policies
and practices’. Smith related CSR to paternalis-
tic capitalism and listed three characteristics of
CSR which are (i) it is not a new concept, (ii)
firms’ motivation may be a mix between self-
interest and desire to do good and (iii) the
nature and scope of the actual responsibilities
are not at all clear.
Some practitioners’ descriptions
of CSR
The debate about CSR has shifted in the sense
that it no longer focuses on whether or not to
become socially responsible and what is CSR,
but, as Smith (2003) explained, it now centres
on how to be socially responsible. Perhaps due
to this shift, business practitioners prefer to
discuss the specific activities that constitute
CSR rather that debating the concept of CSR.
The British Department for Trade and Industry
(DTI) believes that CSR is best defined by
examining the behaviour of organizations.
According to the DTI, in order to be socially
responsible, firms must firstly abide by the laws
of the land as the laws set the minimum standard
of practice. At the same time, in doing their
business, firms must also consider the impact
they have on the wider society they operate in,
particularly on economic, social, environmental
and human rights issues. All these, according to
the DTI, will ultimately bring tangible (e.g.
enhanced profitability, increased sales) and
intangible (e.g. employee loyalty, enhanced
brand value) benefits to the firms.
The World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) defines CSR as ‘business’
Journal of Public Affairs, August–November 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
182
commitment to contribute to sustainable eco-
nomic development, working with their employ-
ees, their families, the local community and
society at large to improve their quality of life’.
This definition is elaborated further in one of
WBCSD’s publication (2000) in which they listed
five priority areas—(i) human rights, (ii)
employee rights, (iii) environmental protection,
(iv) community involvement and (v) supplier
relations. Similar to the DTI, WBCSD also believes
that by developing and implementing a coherent
CSR strategy, firms will gain bottom-line benefits.
Business for Social Responsibility (BSR)
says that the term CSR is used interchan-
geably with various other phrases including
business ethics, corporate citizenship, corporate
accountability and sustainability. To BSR, all
these terms mean ‘achieving commercial suc-
cess in ways that honour ethical values and
respect people, communities and the natural
environment’. According to BSR, socially
responsible firms look at CSR comprehensively
and will address various CSR ‘issues’ such as (i)
business ethics, (ii) community investment,
(iii) the environment, (iv) governance, and
accountability, (v) human rights, (vi) market-
place perception and reaction to business
behaviour and (vii) workplace policies and
practices. BSR also emphasizes that firms will
gain from their socially responsible actions.
The International Business Leaders Forum
(IBLF) defines CSR as ‘open and transparent
business practices that are based on ethical
values and respect for employees, communities
and the environment. It is designed to deliver
sustainable value to society at large, as well as to
shareholders’. IBLF acknowledges that CSR is a
very broad, complex as well as challenging
topic. According to IBLF, CSR includes ‘themes’
such as (i) human rights, labour and security,
(ii) enterprise and economic development, (iii)
business standards and corporate governance,
(iv) health promotion, (v) education and
leadership development (vi) human disaster
relief and (vii) the environment. All these
‘themes’ need to be addressed with specific
‘management toolkit’ in order to ensure that
firms will reap the benefits of being socially
responsible.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Wan Saiful Wan-Jan
The examples described in this section
illustrate how, in practise, although not
categorically stated, business practitioners
already take CSR to mean ethical treatment of
stakeholders.
Conclusion: linking theories and
practice
The debate about the actual meaning of CSR
among scholars and researchers continues.
Admittedly, some say that it is unnecessary to
define CSR since CSR is a context dependent
concept—it may mean differently to different
organizations. One reviewer of this paper
stated that ‘unfortunately the task to find an
overall definition or at least the smallest
denominator of existing definitions seems to
be hopeless’. This author disagrees. Close
examinations of scholarly literature and current
business practise shows that a definition is
possible and practitioners’ actions indicate
their unified understanding of what CSR is,
although a proper definition is yet to be
categorically stipulated. This paper is an
attempt to fill in that gap.
A point of convergence can actually be seen
between the continuing debates in academia
and the practise in the business world. It is
apparent that CSR is increasingly and almost
unanimously seen as serving the needs of
appropriate stakeholders. This is implicit in
the writings of those who argue that CSR
should be seen as an ethical stance, and
explicit among those who see CSR as a
business strategy. The stakeholder groups
being served can vary from one firm to another
depending on the priorities at the time but no
party reject the importance of shareholders
and that a business must be profitable. Those
who take CSR as a business strategy do so
under the belief that CSR can ultimately help
achieve and/or enhance profitability. Addi-
tionally, it can be understood that those who
see CSR as an ethical stance too will see
profitability and serving shareholders as
important because otherwise companies may
not be able to continue exercising their social
responsibility.
Journal of Public Affairs, August–November 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
Corporate Social Responsibility
Thus, this author believes that the definition
provided by Hopkins (2003), that CSR means
‘treating the stakeholders of the firm ethically
or in a responsible manner’, best depicts the
true concept of CSR. This definition allows CSR
to be seen both as an ethical stance and as a
business strategy. It also provides a means of
seeing how CSR can or should work in practise.
It conforms to the argument that CSR should be
an ethical stance of the firm without any
expectation of getting rewards or payback as
this definition does not put any emphasis on
reaping benefits to the firm. It also does not
reject the notion that CSR should be aimed at
enhancing profitability since by serving the
needs of the stakeholders, the firm surely
stands more chance to gain more rewards.
The discussion above indicates that practi-
tioners already see CSR to mean treating
stakeholders ethically. Existing systems to
measure and report CSR—such as GRI, FTSE4-
Good, DJSI and many other self-developed
company reports—also assume this definition.
Thus, this author would argue that ‘treating the
stakeholders of the firm ethically or in a
responsible manner’ is a good definition as it
accepts current reality, accurately reflect con-
temporary attitudes of business practitioners,
and at the same time provides a foundation for
devising usable systems to measure and report
CSR practices. The acceptance of this defini-
tion would also mean that the use of various
terms—for example CSR, corporate responsi-
bility, ethical practices, sustainability, corpo-
rate citizenship, etc.—can be understood to
bring similar meaning as long as the context of
their usage refers to treating stakeholders
ethically.
Biographical note
Wan Saiful works at Social Enterprise London,
an organization working to promote an inclu-
sive, robust and creative social enterprise
community in London. Previously, he was at
the Conservative Party’s Research Department,
and, prior to that, the think tank Common-
wealth Policy Studies Unit. At the time of
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
183
writing this paper, Wan Saiful was completing
his postgraduate studies at Middlesex Univer-
sity Business School.
References
Bragdon JH, Marlin JAT. 1972. Is pollution profit-
able? Risk Management 19(4): 9–18.
Brammer, S, Millington A. 2003. The development
of corporate charitable contributions in the
United Kingdom: a stakeholder analysis. Journal
of Management Studies. 41(8): 1411–1434.
Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) website.
http://www.bsr.org/BSR Resources/IssueBriefDetail.
cfm? DocumentID ¼ 48809
Carroll AB. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual
model of corporate performance. Academy of
Management Journal 4(4): 497–505.
Carroll AB. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social
responsibility: toward the moral management of
organizationsal stakeholders. Business Horizons
July–August 34: 39–48.
CSR Europe website. http://www.csreurope.org/
Dept of Trade & Industry website. http://www.
societyandbusiness. gov.uk/
Freeman RE. 1984. Stretegic Management: A
Stakeholder Appraoch. Pitman: London.
Friedman M. 1970. The Social Responsibility
of Business is to Increase its Profits. Times
Magazine: New York, 13 September 1970, pp 7–
13.
Frooman JS. 1994. Does the market penalize firms
for socially irresponsible behaviour? IABS Proc-
cedings. 329–334.
Goyder M. 2003. Redefining CSR: From the
Rhetoric of Accountability to the Reality of
Earning Trust. Tomorrow’s Company: London.
Henderson D. 2001. Misguided Virtue: False
Notion of Corporate Social Responsibility. New
Zealand Business Roundtable: Wellington.
Henderson D. 2004. The Role of Business in the
Modern World: Progress, Pressures and Pro-
spects for the Market Economy. Institute of
Economic Affairs: London.
Hopkins M. 2003. The Planetary Bargain. Earth-
scan: UK.
IBLF website. http://www.iblf.org/csr/
Jones C. 2003. As if business ethics were possible:
‘within such limits . . . ’. Organization 10(2):
223–248.
Journal of Public Affairs, August–November 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
 184
Kitchin T. 2002. Corporate social responsibility: a
brand explanation. Brand Management 10(4–5):
312–326.
Lantos GP. 2001. The boundaries of strategic
corporate social responsibility. Journal of Con-
sumer Marketing 18(2): 595–630.
Lantos GP. 2002. The ethicality of altruistic corpo-
rate social responsibilty. Journal of Consumer
Marketing. 19(3): 205–230.
Lantos GP. 2003. Corporate socialism masquerades
as ‘‘CSR’’: the difference between being ethical,
altruistic and strategic in business. Strategic
Direction 19(6): 31–35.
Lewis S. 2003. Reputation and corporate responsi-
bility. Journal of Communication Management
7(4): 356–394.
Mintzberg H. 1983. The case for corporate social
responsibility. The Journal of Business Strategy
4(2): 3–15.
Moir L. 2001. What do we mean by corporate social
responsibility? Corporate Governance 1(2): 16–22.
Moore G. 2003. Hives and horseshoes, Mintzberg
and McIntyre: what future for corporate social
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
View publication stats
Wan Saiful Wan-Jan
responsibility? Business Ethics: a European
Review 12(1): 41–53.
Novak M. 1996. Business as a Calling: Work and
the Examined Life. The Free Press: New York.
Porter M. 2003. CSR—a religion with too many priests?.
European Business Forum 15 Autumn 2003.
Schwartz MS, Carroll AB. 2003. Corporate social
responsibility: a three-domain approach. Busi-
ness Ethics Quarterly 13(4): 503–530.
Smith NC. 2003. Corporate social responsibility:
whether or how? California Management
Review. 45(4): 52–76.
Spicer BH. 1978. Investors, corporate social perfor-
mance and information disclosure: an empirical
study. The Accounting Review 53(1): 94–
111.
Trevino LK, Nelson KA. 1999. Managing business
ethics: Straight Talk about how to Do it Right.
2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons: New York.
Weitzman H. 2004. Other responsibilities. Finan-
cial Times (FT) Magazine. 17 April 2004. p 10.
World Business Council for Sustainable Develop-
ment webiste (2002). http://www.wbcsd.ch/
Journal of Public Affairs, August–November 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa